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, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday March 12 2014, @06:33PM
Wiki, maybe, But IRC is NOT a place for recording decisions, or even discussing them in a public way.
See those 4 or 5 Icons at the top of the page? Use them.
Maybe we need a new one for Organizational issues.
And if an occasional "meta" (organizational) article creeps into the current front page, that's fine. We are ALL here due to some dissatisfaction with the level of transparency of /., and therefore it just seems wrong to be bitching (with a two digit id, for crap sake!) about one or two stories a week dealing with our fledgling structure.
You can not be both Involved, Informed, and have a Voice, and at the same time totally isolated from any attempts to Involve you, Inform you, and give you a Voice.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ticho on Wednesday March 12 2014, @07:10PM
The thing is that if I want to be Involved, Informed and have a Voice, I should actively seek out proper channels for that, and not have it pushed on me via channel I expect regular articles to come from. I honestly thought that since SN staff decided to spend so much time setting up mentioned side channels, they were going to use them for exactly this. If not, well, they seem rather pointless to me.
As you said, occasional meta article is fine, but past several days are already far from occasional.
p.s. I am not here because of my dissatisfaction with /.'s transparency, I am here because of my dissatisfaction with the user interface.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jimshatt on Wednesday March 12 2014, @09:51PM
But had they interfaced with the user in a more transparent way (or, at all, really, before it was too late), you might not have been dissatisfied. Decisions have to be made, but one can choose to involve the users or not. I prefer the latter, and I don't mind if that means a few frontpage articles. You can always choose not to read them.
(Score: 1) by dast on Wednesday March 12 2014, @07:11PM
Wow, I wish I had some mod points. We don't need to be kept in the dark about the governance of this new site. One or two stories per week isn't going to kill anyone. Maybe we all need to think more about the topic so that this place doesn't get passed around between owners like a cheap hooker.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrbluze on Wednesday March 12 2014, @07:35PM
It's early days. You have to expect discussion on the foundation of the site, in a years time this will be business as usual more or less.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dast on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:56PM
Exactly. This early on, I'm extremely happy that the staff is keeping us up to date. This will die down after a while.