do you anticipate needing to find larger, notoriety-drivenprojects to "jumpstart" the site, given the your reliance on the power of networks to bring in new customers via digital word of mouth?

Yes, I think this would be a great way to help get word out for CommunityGoals!

what's the average-size project (in terms of dollars offered to Solution Providers) you see happening on CommunityGoals?

I can only guess, of course, but I think projects could range anywhere from $50 to $10,000 or above. Like I mentioned in the resources section, I will be seeking further advice regarding any financial and legal constraints that are important.

just because an organization is a non-profit doesn't mean nobody is profiting from it:

"Of the 282 nonprofit groups in the  Chronicle  survey, 34 paid their chief executives $500,000 or more. At 30 organizations, the highest-paid employee other than the chief executive also was paid $500,000 or more."
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v14/i24/24003301.htm

personal cars/drivers, private planes, status-symbol housing; wonder where your $50 tax-deductible donation went?

Thanks for the comments; these have really challenged me to articulate what I am doing more clearly.

My responses, below...

AND the rationale for "sending money" needs to be bolstered substantially for me to think this would get accepted.

I don't understand your criticism.   If the goal does not happen, the contributors money is returned.

Maybe this is what you mean... People are more likely to donate when they understand what their donation is going towards?   Yes, I understand that traditionally, people donate to established organizations.   But more and more, people want to donate to specific projects.

I am creating an organization that will have a legal responsibility to manage those donations according to a request for proposal process.   The process will be explained and transparent.   If people want to donate, great.   If not, they can use other ways to donate.

Traditional ways of giving are great.   But some people want a new way to do projects.   I'm giving them a new way.

As you note, several onlone orgs already do something similar: TechSoup and Kiva ..with more foundation & track record beneath them.

Actually, I think CommunityGoals is significantly different than the sites you mention. I agree that perhaps they can be considered to live in the same family of Web sites, call it online philanthropy. There are dozens of sites that do online philantrophy; I've looked at every one that I can.   This area is really growing with ideas.

* I like Kiva and the micro-loan sites.

* I like the awarness-generating sites.

* I like the social-networking sites with a cause.

* I like the "find a charity" sites.

* I like the "shop at retail stores" and we'll donate a percentage to charities.

I'm glad.   I think these are great ideas worth trying.

But there is room for more.   They leave a lot on the table.   Nothing out there is truly harnessing the wisdom of crowds.   What I mean is that all of these sites require that one person say, "give me the money and I will do X".   CommunityGoals lets people agree on the problems first, and then pool resources to find a solution that the group is comfortable with.

So let me compare CommunityGoals to TechSoup and Kiva, head-to-head:

* Kiva uses microloans, which is a very different process than CommunityGoals.   The lender expects to get their money back.   In CommunityGoals, contributors donate (not loan).   They get a service (not money) in return.

* From what I understand, TechSoup does something only vaguely similar to what CommunityGoals will do.   Yes, once in a while, it accepts project proposals and gives them an award or possibly funding.   But it does do this on a continuous basis.   And, to my knowledge, TechSoup does not pool contributor money.

Other advantages of CommunityGoals:

* CommunityGoals has a built-in verification mechanism, so the contributors don't pay unless the project is really completed.

* Contributors get to play a part in the process.   It is like they are members of a board, they get to help select which proposal is selected.   I think many contributors will like playing this role.

Overall, I have not seen any tool out there that does what CommunityGoals will do.

And - they are non-profit.   :-)

I'm not sure that I buy the traditional argument that non-profits are necessarily better than for-profits.   I think it is more important to examine an organization, case by case, and ask a few questions.   First, does the organization help achieve good in the world? (There are many ways to do good things, some involve direct volunteerism, some involve grant making, some involve creating good products and services, some involve creating a good workplace, and so on.)   Second, does the organization operate effectively and efficiently.   Part of the second part is this: did the organization pick the right organizational structure in order to carry out its mission?

I've studied the non-profit form of organization.   I've volunteered for several non-profits.   Most organizations formed as non-profits are great.   But the non-profit designation alone is not enough to make the claim that an organization is good.   Some non-profits are nothing more than tax shelters.   Some are run incredibly inefficiently.

I've also studied for-profit organizations.   I've worked for many.   Some are big businesses that do terrible things -- bending government rules in their favor, exploiting workers, etc..   But most are small or medium businesses that provide livelihood for people and their families.   And some are actually sustainable organizations that do a whole lot of good.

If you read the values of my company, I think you will know where I stand:

http://collectiveinsight.net/about/values

- - - -

So, yes, CommunityGoals will be a for-profit project.   In name only, since I have not made profit yet.   Having a potential upside if the idea is successful makes it much more likely that people like me to take this kind of financial risk and start something from nothing.

eBay is a for-profit business... and I would say this: it has done a great job at creating a very efficient market for trade.   I'll bet that it has done more good for people (through trade) than all of these other sites combined.

I envision CommunityGoals as the eBay for services, letting people pool money for group goals.   To do this, I need to create a big market where lots of people participate.   I need to scale this up.   It is easier to attract the team I need if I can afford to pay them :)

Great questions!    I was running up against some word count limits, so I couldn't go into all the details.   :)

Would you mind if we discuss this on the  NetSquared page?   I think it would be good for others to share in this discussion.    For time being, I will keep it private, until I hear one way or the other from you.

Here are my answers, below:

I have a couple of thoughts. I am sure you've thought through many of these questions already, but here you go:

From my perspective, if I were to either give money or propose an idea on your service I know that I would want to 'feel' like I have as much control as possible over the project. From the giving money standpoint, I like that I would have a vote on who would do the project, but is that it? What if I am the largest giver to the project, does my vote weigh more - I would be disappointed if it didn't.

You are right, many people will want the $1 = 1 vote idea.   This is a natural reaction I think.

I have to choose from one of the options, below... Which would you recommend?

Option A: Allow a goal creator to configure a goal as $1 = 1 vote OR 1 person = 1 vote.   That way a goal creator has the option.   Contributors can avoid a goal if they don't like the configuration.   Either way  has pros and cons.   $1 = 1 vote will probably be less susceptible to people setting up multiple accounts.   $1 = 1 vote could result in a pool of money being hijacked by big money contributors.

Option B: All goals must be $1 = 1 vote.

Option C: All goals must be 1 person = 1 vote.

What if there is a solution proposal that I think is ridiculous - I would want to make sure that no matter what, my money wouldn't be contributed to that idea. If there was some sort of way for people to withhold their money for a project if a solution that they didn't like was chosen, that would help keep some of the more serious donors happy.  

You are raising a very important general question: is the money given conditionally or unconditionally?   My current plan is that if you donate, you do so unconditionally.   If you are not comfortable with an unconditional donation, then you should probably create a more specific version of the goal with some details that constrain it.   Does this sound reasonable?

That said, even after you give unconditionally, if you really dislike a project, you can rank it dead last and that will hurt its chances.

This is a really tough question.   I can't have it both ways.   I'm really pushing for something unique -- a donation snowball effect, followed by a "wisdom of crowds" voting.

Also, who ultimately decides if a project is complete and meets all expectations? Is it the person who proposed the project?

Part of the process, which I didn't describe because of word count limits, is that the contributors vote to pick a verifier.   That verifier's job is to confirm or deny that the work was done properly.   The group can decide if the verifier gets paid or not and whether it is a flat fee or percentage.

I would consider the investors to the project important stakeholders who would want some sort of input into whether or not a project was completed successfully - do you have a mechanism for allowing this sort of feedback?

Another tough problem.    My lawyer warned me against having everyone in the group being able to say if the project was completed successfully.  That could lead to all sorts of situations.   For example, it could lead to one person saying the project was not completed simply because they did not agree with the project being picked at all, rather than evaluating if the project was done as proposed.   It is better to have one entity whose job it is to confirm or deny.   This verifying entity could be a person or an organization, depending on what the group wants.

It seems like there is opportunity for expectations to differ between people, and making sure that the results match peoples expectations is going to be critical for long-term success of this idea. Some sort of discussion board for each proposal would probably help to clarify ideas.  

The goal statement itself is the "gold standard" by which contributors agree to give or not.   A discussion board is a cool idea.   However, it is problematic to have the discussion board be a "binding" constraint on the goal, since discussions change over time.   I have decided that the actual way by which proposals are selected is by vote.   The discussion board could certainly be useful for people to debate ideas, but ultimately it is their vote that drives which proposal is selected.

I think it is important to think of the people giving money as "investors" because not all projects are going to be considered non-profit or charity work - many projects will be there because people have a vested interest in the outcome. The goal is to appeal to people's self-interest side, and those people are going to want as much of a voice as possible to make sure that whatever they give their money to is done right.  

Good point!    Right, not all projects will be official charities.   Some won't even be close.

I do want to appeal to self-interest, but hopefully enlightened self-interest, too. :)

I'm not sure if I want to use the word "investor" because it implies monetary return on the investment.   Contribution still lets people feel good about what they are doing, even though they know that they will receive some benefit in return.

Since I haven't seen your site yet - I can only speculate about what it looks like. However, are you going to set it up like craigslist where ideas can be grouped by city/community?  

I plan on having a list of cities in the future, but right now it is based on keyword search.

Anyways - I think you have a good idea and I hope it does well.  

Thanks for your comments!