SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
prospectacle writes:
"An important choice remains for this site. What kind of organisation will we be, practically, legally and financially?
A for-profit, shareholder corporation seems out of the question, by general consensus (correct me if I'm wrong), but other questions remain. The basic choice is this:
Will we be like a charity, a co-op, or a recreational club?
- (Like a) Charity:
Being like a charity means operating for the public benefit. What we produce is news and englightened commentary for the benefit of the world. All our finances and operations would be geared towards this aim. All excess revenue is reinvested into the site. - Co-op:
A co-op is for the mutual financial benefit of individual (possibly paid) members. Three main sub-options for this exist that might be appropriate for this site:
2a) A retailer's co-op. Members use a common organisation in order to make individual profits. For example if members used this site to display their stunning intelligence, and then put their resume or website links on their profile page so people could hire them. Maybe there are services built into the site to find someone to hire who fits your requirements.
2b) A worker's co-operative: Employees share any excess revenue. Some revenue would go to expenses, some would be reinvested, whatever remains is shared among employees.
2c) A buyer's co-op. We exist to get discounts, or to buy together what we can't afford separately. Maybe we're buying well-written news and analysis from professional authors. Or maybe we're bulk-buying electronics, etc, so the price-per individual can be lower. - A Recreational Club:
This takes membership fees to provide access to equipment, organize competitions, etc. Maybe paid members would get to use extra services, like an email account, or storage space, or their own discussion thread area, or software project hosting, or chat-rooms, etc. Non-members could still be permitted, with fewer privileges, and would have to pay-per-use for the extra services (or pay to become a member).
This is a gross simplification, but gives some idea of the options involved. Feel free to offer alternatives. So what should we be, what is our purpose, really? And what kind of a structure is required to make sure we serve that purpose, and that money doesn't end up in the wrong pockets?
Bonus question: which jurisdiction should we set ourselves up in to fulfil our mission most effectively?"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Taco Cowboy on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:16AM
I dunno why but somehow I feel uncomfortable seeing people already talking about "models of operation" of a certain thing when we do not even know if we will still be using the soylentnews.org domain in the first place.
I may be a geek (always have been) but I do run businesses and do invest in many startups. The way business does thing is to be pragmatic - that is, we do not talk about the marketing plan before we have a product or before we have an idea how our product gonna look like, etc.
First thing first - let's get back to the first cliff-hanger we have ---
1. Are we going to use the soylentnews.org or not ?
1a.
1b.
Let's get this settle first, folks, before we start talking about the next step.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quadrox on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:22AM
This is not a product. We are not a company. We don't need to release anything to the public, let alone market it. We are here for us, not for some spreadsheet wielding overlords.
Therefore the exact definition of how we want to ensure we can stay "free" is THE most imortant thing to discuss. When that is done, we can decide on the name according the organisational charter that we have chosen. Before we have that we cannot do anything without the risk of alienating part of the community. Only when we agree on how to operate and make decisions can we actually make those important decisions.
(Score: 0) by Taco Cowboy on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:29AM
Before you answer my comment, please read it, digest it, understand what I was saying, and then, reply.
What is all with those "marketing people and executives need not apply" shit ???
It has nothing to do with "marketing", man.
The bit "marketing" that I used in my original message was to show that in order for us to get to second step, we must get the first obstacle licked.
As of now, the first obstacle hasn't even been settled. We still do not know if soylentnews.org gonna be used or not, we still do not know which other domain names are in the "list" (as mentioned by someone else in another thread).
Get that first obstacle licked first, and then we start discussing what kind of organization we gonna have. Or else it would be an exercise in futility.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quadrox on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:36AM
Your original comment does not make any sense to me - we didn't split from slashdot because we didn't like the name, we split because we didn't like the mode of operation. Therefore that is the important part
If you view this differently, I can only attribute it the the two points you made in your post: The one being about marketing, the other being about your status as an executive.
I can only say that from my POV your perspective is way off. Perhaps I misread the reason, but then it was your fault for putting something in that is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the topic.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Soruk on Wednesday March 12 2014, @02:40PM
<tongue location=cheek>
1) Install SlashCode.
2)
3) Profit!
</tongue>
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Taco Cowboy on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:24AM
Just because I voiced out my opinion someone immediately modded my comment down with "redundant".
Where is the "redundant" bit ? I have scanned all the other comments (so far 6) and there is *NO OTHER* comment that talked about the points that my comment above has brought up.
Are we going to be as goddamn knee-jerk and as abusive as we did when we were in /. ?
If the answer is yes, then damn this site as we damn /., for there is no point of having a discussion if someone mod a comment down with a frivolous excuse just because he or she does not agree with what that message has conveyed.
If you guys want to behave just like those goddamn fuckers in /., stay back in /.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Open4D on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:36AM
I agree that your comment shouldn't have been modded down. I wonder if there's going to be meta-moderation at some point. Personally I'm keeping an eye on this [soylentnews.org].
But I disagree about the name being the most important thing. In this thread [soylentnews.org] of today's Status Update story, I argued that we may want to consider sorting out our legal position before deciding on a permanent site name.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 12 2014, @12:16PM
I have mod points, but rather than mod you down I'm posting a reply to say nobody likes a whiner.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 12 2014, @02:00PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 12 2014, @02:50PM
Actually I modded his original post up because I did think the "redundant" mod was unfair. The worst part about whiners is they're sometimes right.
(Score: 2, Informative) by cwix on Wednesday March 12 2014, @03:56PM
Actually no you cant.
Mod a comment and then post AC and you will see at the top it undoes your moderations. It happened to me yesterday. It did this on /. as well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by efitton on Wednesday March 12 2014, @04:48PM
You can do it if you sign out instead of "Post Anonymously"
(Score: 1) by cwix on Wednesday March 12 2014, @04:55PM
Well, yes I suppose that would work. Too much trouble for me though.
(Score: 1) by Peristaltic on Wednesday March 12 2014, @02:26PM
In a better world, it wouldn't happen, but this is a public site, and it's going to happen. The only way to significantly lessen the noise is to adopt something like the Hacker News moderation system, and while there is useful stuff to be dredged from the discussion over there, the attitude reminds me of a hipster coffee house in Soho. I don't think that would go over very well here.
I understand the sentiment, but you're wasting your time holding back the tide with a rake. Take a step back and a deep breath, then do what most of us did on /. : browse the comments at 2 or 3 and let the moderation system work.
(Score: 1) by monster on Wednesday March 12 2014, @03:59PM
That doesn't work, unless someone actually browses at 0 or even -1 and upmod worthy comments. That is precisely the reason so many interesting comments in the other site were almost invisible, starting from 1 or 0 (even from ACs) while the obvious "¡OMG Ponies!" and links to XKCD would get +5.
I can't speak for others, but for me this is a nascent community that needs encouraging for good behaviors and that is the reason I browse at -1 and almost always upmod instead of downmodding other comments. Please, applaud the good citizens before wooing the bad apples or just ignoring the masses (browsing at 2 and above). This is also the reason I have deactivated my "good karma" modifier: Anything I say should be weighted because of its value, not because it's me saying it. Anyway, that's just my opinion.
(Score: 1) by Peristaltic on Wednesday March 12 2014, @05:07PM
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:02PM
As I understand it, you can browse at a higher threshold most of the time. If/when you are awarded modpoints, the convention is to make sure you change that to -1 for this reason.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 1) by monster on Friday March 14 2014, @07:59AM
But when that happens, are you going to re-read several articles to find those gems that you missed the first time, or will you simply go to those you haven't already read?
Just my 2 cents.
(Score: 1) by harmar on Wednesday March 12 2014, @01:32PM
Is your business successful? Seriously? You will create a product THEN see if there is a market for it? Sounds like a good way to burn up a lot of cash.
You want to know if there is a market for your product, and how do you actually market your product before you make it...
(Score: 1) by GlennC on Wednesday March 12 2014, @04:21PM
I agree...get the foundation built first, then work on making it pretty.
I'm also thinking that a new name and domain are a necessity, since nobody knows for sure about the intent of the person that bought out Barrabas.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Wednesday March 12 2014, @04:34PM
I think I got what bothered me about this post for on the surface there is some sense. Yet, while you claim a "geek" hat, you talk a little to much like a executive and the dissonance is jarring.
Given that you invest in startups (can we talk, I got one in mind*) I figure you to step beyond the pragmatic at times and do what you 'feel' may be right. Not everything can be analayzed before a decision is made so we go with with may work, not always what will.
Why not see that both can occur as discussion points. 1 - Who are we. that may take a little time to figure out and the process to get there *is* important so the overall body can feel accepting of that identity. Part of it is the name, part of it is the model by which is operates. As a fellow geek I understand that systems can run multiple threads, processing independent till the meet at the end. Similar to projects that can have parallel tasks that meet at a benchmark.
This is how I see what is happening now. We have a name, but it is not established so in the interest of moving other aspects forward it is used as a substitute. In a survey then we could either say
Do you like Soylentnews to be
1 - For Profit
2 - Non-profit
3 - Free as in Beer
4 - Cowboy Niel's bitch
or
Do you like [fill in the blank] to be
1 - For Profit
2 - Non-profit
3 - Free as in Beer
4 - Cowboy Niel's bitch
while at the same time the other selection goes
Do you want your [fill in the blank] business model to be named
1 - NoMoreDrama.org
2 - phucbeta.com
3 - revoltisChaos.ru
4 - CowboyNielsBitch.gov
The two can be worked out in parallel, not just in series. So perhaps some folks didn't get that you had a valid point, but it was a little to coached in a language many of us don't like to read. jat
* (OT) I'd love to start up a small horse farm providing boarding, training, and local events. My logjam is two much real estate rich, and equity poor. If I can get someone to just buy one or both of my properties (turn around and sell em) I can get the loan to this farm. (sigh), the struggle of the middle class is not that we don't want to work (we do) or that we don't want to start a business (we do), but we don't have the access to and capability to take the risk without catastrophic failure. In my case, I'll most likely lose this dream for I cannot carry three loans till I get rid of two, though I wont stop dreaming. Anyway, that's my start up story.
The more things change, the more they look the same