RE: Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I don't know that community ownership is that big a deal, to be honest.
If I mismanage SouthAustralia, there's nothing stopping you and @galenkp from starting a new one. @shaidon might start posting on both, then gradually stop posting on mine.
As long as there's no friction the members can vote with their feet.
Until they do, it's probably best that one owner has some incentive to set the culture, set roles, moderate content etc.
0
0
0.000
Lol! Simples!
Let's be honest, people flock to the community which will offer them the best votes. So all you really need to do is that. So Shaidon might complain you're mis-managing it, but he's staying because your vote's better. 😉
First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the frogcake.
I want frogcake!!!!!
It's only ever 3 Adelaide meetups away :)
You won't let us in..... waaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I've been noticing that with a couple of the art communities 🙄
🎵 Money makes the world go round...🎶
Money changes everything... damn, now I have a Cyndi Pauper earworm....
Spoken like a true AnCap :)
Why can't members just vote without using their feet?
Because it's mine :)
...and I totally support your private property rights.
I just don't think it can really be called a "Community" if it is really somebodies private property. It just seems a bit disingenuous for one thing to be masquerading as another and misunderstanding over this is possibly what led to the controversy described in the OP.
The name 'Community', particularly in this uber-decentralised environment; can absolutely be misleading. No argument.
I personally think the word 'Community' should be reserved for non-profits.
Of course, then you have duration questions.
Am I undertaking to keep it non-profit indefinitely?
If I change my mind, is loss of some members the only consequence?
What if I sell it to some Chinese guy and don't mention all this?
Absolutely. I think that transparency and some sort of declaration of intent or "vision" is important to avoid misunderstandings about what something IS or at least is intended to become.
Your questions are great and there are plenty of examples of people choosing personal enrichment at the expense of people who thought they had a say or stake in things - but when it came to it they really didn't. These kinds of situations need to be avoided as they can create incredible grievance.
I was suggesting "workflows" which is a bit of a dev term, but basically something could start out as one thing and morph into another over time (when it's ready and meets certain pre-conditions). For example, you could create an "Incubator" that could mature and morph into a "Community" or a "Club" or a "Company" depending on ownership and governance models that might evolve as it grows and matures.