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: 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>