Alice’s bio refers to the “Idea Market” and clearly lists this as her incubated organization.
It doesn’t. It lists her as the “Project Manager of the Idea Market”.
We list her as an incubatee as well because the plan was always that she’d use the Idea Market (a product that prioritizes charity ideas) to figure out what charity to start. While she was building it, she’d gain valuable experience and mentorship while building something high impact in expectation.
There was never any expectation that it was hers or that she’d spin out with the Idea Market.
Ben never says that Alice thought she was running a separate organization.
This sentence clearly indicates Alice thought she “owned” the organization, not that it was a project under Nonlinear with the possibility of being spun out later.
She also falsely stated that we requested it. It was ours the entire time. When she requested if she could have it and the $240,000, we said no. Then she started telling false and misleading claims about us to the community.
This sentence also shows that she believes it was an incubated organization, not a project under Nonlinear with the possibility of being spun out later.
I think maybe part of your reasoning is that she might think she’s a fiscally sponsored organization? You say “He represents Alice as claiming that her organization was fiscally sponsored by Nonlinear and shared a bank account and operational resources, but operated independently and planned to spin out in the future”
I haven’t seen evidence for that in any of Ben’s writing and it would certainly be the first I heard of it. Where does he say that it’s a fiscally sponsored org?
Seems like something you could consider, but in terms of hypotheses, very unlikely unless they’re actually claiming that that’s the case and can provide evidence for that.
As it is, we have meeting minutes describing Alice as the project manager of the Productivity Fund. This on its own should be more than enough, since the only evidence she has is her anonymous word. If it was just she-said-she-said, then it might be ambiguous. But we have it in writing and she simply has her word.
If you are comparing the evidence impartially without isolated demands for rigor, then it’s clear she was a project manager of the Productivity Fund.
And we don’t just have it in writing what her role was. You can read the section to get all of the other smaller pieces of evidence, which all add up to quite a lot.
Ben’s post also refers to Alice’s incubated organization, and says that it had a budget of $100k. But Kat’s post refers to the “Productivity Fund,” which has a budget of $240k.
I also don’t know where the $100k number came from. Would be happy if Ben or Alice clarified.
Side note: the 240k was not raised by Alice for Alice. It was raised by me for Nonlinear.
Okay, I think it would be helpful to clarify some definitions.
I read your use of “separate organization” to mean a fully independent organization not operating under the legal entity of Nonlinear at all. That’s because you talk about Alice using Nonlinear’s bank account, ops support, etc. as evidence that she does not have a separate org, while these things would all be perfectly normal for an incubated or fiscally sponsored org. Ben never claims, and never claims that Alice claimed, that she had a fully independent entity of this type. When he says she “gave Nonlinear ownership” of the organization, I did not read that as him saying that she transferred legal control of an indendent entity, but ceded practical control of the project she was incubating inside Nonlinear. I think this is more consistent with the other quotes from Ben’s document, where he says that the organization was indeed using Nonlinear’s bank account and being incubated by Nonlinear.
I was using fiscally sponsorsed and incubated interchangeably, and apologize for any confusion that may have caused. In my parlance, these would be equivalent – an incubated org is understood to be under the control of the incubatee while being fiscally sponsored by the incubator, but it seems that you (and maybe the rest of Nonlinear?) are working with a different definition of one or both terms. Certainly I would naturally assume that project with the intent to spin out is an incubated organization, since the whole point of incubating an org is that it would one day spin out and become independent!
I don’t find the fact that Alice is described as a “Project Manager” very compelling either way, since I can’t tell how you’re using that term, and elsewhere you seem to use it to refer to the heads of incubated organizations.
I have read all the evidence you’ve provided, and as I explain in my earlier post, I don’t think any of it clearly establishes that Alice was not the head of a project under Nonlinear as opposed to an incubated org. Everything you describe would be perfectly normal for the head of an incubated org.
I don’t have a strong opinion about what was actually going on, because the situation seems incredibly confusing. I mostly object to your characterization that Alice must have been delusional to think she was running her own incubated org. I am reasonably familiar with nonprofit law and the spin-out process, and I’m confused about whether Alice was running an incubated org. Your statements here have not made it easier to understand whether or not Alice was running an incubated org, or indeed what Nonlinear management understands an incubated org to be.
In any case, if Alice was not running an incubated org, that means that she was brought on with the expectation that she would be incubating her own project, and instead ended up responsible for a different project over which she had significantly less control and leadership, and (it sounds like) never had this change in responsibility fully clarified. After looking over the evidence that exists in writing, I’m pretty convinced that at the very least there was a very significant failure of communication and expectation-setting here.
It doesn’t. It lists her as the “Project Manager of the Idea Market”.
We list her as an incubatee as well because the plan was always that she’d use the Idea Market (a product that prioritizes charity ideas) to figure out what charity to start. While she was building it, she’d gain valuable experience and mentorship while building something high impact in expectation.
There was never any expectation that it was hers or that she’d spin out with the Idea Market.
I’m confused. Why do you believe this?
“[Alice] gave Nonlinear (on their request) full ownership of the organization”
This sentence clearly indicates Alice thought she “owned” the organization, not that it was a project under Nonlinear with the possibility of being spun out later.
She also falsely stated that we requested it. It was ours the entire time. When she requested if she could have it and the $240,000, we said no. Then she started telling false and misleading claims about us to the community.
“from the funds allocated for her incubated organization”
This sentence also shows that she believes it was an incubated organization, not a project under Nonlinear with the possibility of being spun out later.
I think maybe part of your reasoning is that she might think she’s a fiscally sponsored organization? You say “He represents Alice as claiming that her organization was fiscally sponsored by Nonlinear and shared a bank account and operational resources, but operated independently and planned to spin out in the future”
I haven’t seen evidence for that in any of Ben’s writing and it would certainly be the first I heard of it. Where does he say that it’s a fiscally sponsored org?
Seems like something you could consider, but in terms of hypotheses, very unlikely unless they’re actually claiming that that’s the case and can provide evidence for that.
As it is, we have meeting minutes describing Alice as the project manager of the Productivity Fund. This on its own should be more than enough, since the only evidence she has is her anonymous word. If it was just she-said-she-said, then it might be ambiguous. But we have it in writing and she simply has her word.
If you are comparing the evidence impartially without isolated demands for rigor, then it’s clear she was a project manager of the Productivity Fund.
And we don’t just have it in writing what her role was. You can read the section to get all of the other smaller pieces of evidence, which all add up to quite a lot.
I also don’t know where the $100k number came from. Would be happy if Ben or Alice clarified.
Side note: the 240k was not raised by Alice for Alice. It was raised by me for Nonlinear.
Okay, I think it would be helpful to clarify some definitions.
I read your use of “separate organization” to mean a fully independent organization not operating under the legal entity of Nonlinear at all. That’s because you talk about Alice using Nonlinear’s bank account, ops support, etc. as evidence that she does not have a separate org, while these things would all be perfectly normal for an incubated or fiscally sponsored org. Ben never claims, and never claims that Alice claimed, that she had a fully independent entity of this type. When he says she “gave Nonlinear ownership” of the organization, I did not read that as him saying that she transferred legal control of an indendent entity, but ceded practical control of the project she was incubating inside Nonlinear. I think this is more consistent with the other quotes from Ben’s document, where he says that the organization was indeed using Nonlinear’s bank account and being incubated by Nonlinear.
I was using fiscally sponsorsed and incubated interchangeably, and apologize for any confusion that may have caused. In my parlance, these would be equivalent – an incubated org is understood to be under the control of the incubatee while being fiscally sponsored by the incubator, but it seems that you (and maybe the rest of Nonlinear?) are working with a different definition of one or both terms. Certainly I would naturally assume that project with the intent to spin out is an incubated organization, since the whole point of incubating an org is that it would one day spin out and become independent!
I don’t find the fact that Alice is described as a “Project Manager” very compelling either way, since I can’t tell how you’re using that term, and elsewhere you seem to use it to refer to the heads of incubated organizations.
I have read all the evidence you’ve provided, and as I explain in my earlier post, I don’t think any of it clearly establishes that Alice was not the head of a project under Nonlinear as opposed to an incubated org. Everything you describe would be perfectly normal for the head of an incubated org.
I don’t have a strong opinion about what was actually going on, because the situation seems incredibly confusing. I mostly object to your characterization that Alice must have been delusional to think she was running her own incubated org. I am reasonably familiar with nonprofit law and the spin-out process, and I’m confused about whether Alice was running an incubated org. Your statements here have not made it easier to understand whether or not Alice was running an incubated org, or indeed what Nonlinear management understands an incubated org to be.
In any case, if Alice was not running an incubated org, that means that she was brought on with the expectation that she would be incubating her own project, and instead ended up responsible for a different project over which she had significantly less control and leadership, and (it sounds like) never had this change in responsibility fully clarified. After looking over the evidence that exists in writing, I’m pretty convinced that at the very least there was a very significant failure of communication and expectation-setting here.