There is something of a minor movement afoot among computer junkies who seem to want to give something back to society -- on their own terms. It is called GiveCamp and has been showing up in metro centers around the United States. They are bringing together a bunch of contractor types, beverages, and Xbox gaming systems and claiming a social conscience because they're going to give away some newly minted code to a non-profit organization.
The techies are getting a weekend of activities they enjoy doing with a group of people who have similar tastes. (Writing computer code and playing Xbox games would not be a fun weekend for everybody, but it is what these folks would be doing with or without the GiveCamp organization.) The more important question is, What are they actually donating?
They have pre-defined the scope of their gift to be limited to the design and construction of stand-alone software. The project requirements must already be defined for them. The project is all done over a single weekend, so testing will be limited. And they offer no maintenance or support.
It is, therefore, a self-centered kind of altruism and a solution in search of a problem. "Let's all get together for a weekend, have some fun, and salve our consciences by leaving something useful behind." These techies are making an immature play in the Actual Reality Game.
If I were running a non-profit, I'd turn them down. Even shrink-wrapped software has some support, however minimal, and there are usually other non-profits you can turn to with questions. Museums and churches, for example, typically buy sector-standard software (PastPerfect for museums, any of several products for churches); they get training, support, and a large user community. Perhaps that's why the Twin Cities group had a problem finding a customer.
And yet -- there is still something positive here. They are willing to benefit society, to make a play which utilizes their skills to create a broader benefit than just beverages and computer gaming. What they lack is experienced and insightful leadership, people who know how to match the actual reality of ability with the actual reality of need.
In recent years I've been reading a lot about the need to cultivate leaders in business, engineering, churches, even computers. My sense is that little is done which would actually encourage, support, or train people with the capacity to provide the kind of leadership so lacking among these computer junkies.
And yet -- there must already be leaders. Who initiated the GiveCamp concept? Who spread the idea, created the websites, contacted the non-profits in a (nearly fruitless) search for a customer? If there were no people serving in leadership roles, the idea would never have gotten beyond a late night conversation with friends over beverages and Xbox games.
What, then, must our conclusion be? First, these techies already have a willingness to contribute more for the benefit other people than merely playing games and drinking beer. Second, there are leaders among them who are able to draw a group together to pursue a common purpose. Third, these leaders among the computer gamers are still naifs in the actual reality game. Therefore, we must conclude that computer junkies are a potentially powerful resource awaiting a more skillful player, a leader of leaders, who will play them effectively.