+5000!

Thanks to:

  • Tobias Ahlers
  • Yves Moisan
  • Matthew Latterell
  • Patrick Shaw
  • William Murphy
  • Eric Steele
  • Scott Paley
  • Vincenzo Barone
  • Niels Steen Krogh

You’re the most recent contributors to the Plone Strategic Planning Summit fundraiser!

Niels put us over the top this morning, we’ve now raised $5130 from 30 donors against our $5000 goal. With a $5000 match from the Plone Foundation, that means we’ll have $10,130 in our Plone Strategic Planning subsidy fund!

This will allow us to cover travel expenses to California for some of the Plone community’s most important (and far flung!) contributors for three days of big-picture thinking about the bright future of Plone.

Wow! Plone community, you are truly amazing! Your strong response to both the fundraising campaign and our community survey (over 200 responses!) makes us all feel tremendously confident and supported going into the strategic planning retreat.  It’s great to dream big when you know you have such a supportive community backing you up!

If you’re still itching to support the future of Plone, you can make a donation to the Plone Foundation. We’re going to be spending a lot more time, energy (and, we hope, money) this year on improving Plone marketing, redesigning Plone.org, and more.

Thanks, Thomas & Tannic!

Thanks to Thomas Zeleny and Tannic, Inc. for becoming the most recent donors to the Plone Strategic Planning Summit. We’re just a few days from the end of our fundraising drive (and the summit itself!), and we’ve reached $3345 toward are goal of $5000 from 21 donors.

The Plone Foundation will match donations dollar-for-dollar, so that makes $6690 in our travel scholarship fund. That’s pretty great — but we’ve gotten over $7000 in scholarship requests. So, if you are getting value from Plone, and haven’t donated yet, now’s a great time to invest in the future of Plone.

Is the Tipping Point Bullshit?

New research suggests the Malcom Gladwell-popularized theory of “Influentials” (or Gatekeepers) doesn’t hold water. Really interesting article in FastCompany about research Duncan Watts:

Watts, for one, didn’t think the gatekeeper model was true. It certainly didn’t match what he’d found studying networks. So he decided to test it in the real world by remounting the Milgram experiment on a massive scale. In 2001, Watts used a Web site to recruit about 61,000 people, then asked them to ferry messages to 18 targets worldwide. Sure enough, he found that Milgram was right: The average length of the chain was roughly six links. But when he examined these pathways, he found that “hubs”–highly connected people–weren’t crucial. Sure, they existed. But only 5% of the email messages passed through one of these superconnectors. The rest of the messages moved through society in much more democratic paths, zipping from one weakly connected individual to another, until they arrived at the target. Why did Milgram get it wrong? Watts thinks it’s simply because his sample was so small–only a few dozen letters reached their mark. The dominance of the three friends could have been a statistical accident. “And since Milgram’s finding sort of made sense, nobody even bothered to redo the experiment,” Watts shrugs. But when you perform the experiment with hundreds of successfully completed letters, a different picture emerges: Influentials don’t govern person-to-person communication. We all do.

There’s a really interesting bit about how they experimented with ForwardTrack, which makes viral forwarding activity transparent to the users. It massively increased pass-along traffic. I really want to start working this into more online activism work.