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: 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