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?
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, 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.