|
|
Post by microbet on May 18, 2019 1:58:23 GMT
It's asking an awful lot of good faith and trust among mostly anonymous people who have never met. Trusting the treasurer with $40/month? The domain holder (might be worth a couple thousand dollars at some point)? The admins not to skim ad money? I think the bigger problem is that if we have a Discourse server the site has to be setup, maintained, and backed up. That's a fair amount of work and sorta being on call, and like 3 people seem really into doing that? I'm not saying I'm not willing to do that, but trying to figure out some way that more could come out of it and still provide the service makes it easier to do. |
|
|
|
Post by JoltinJake on May 18, 2019 2:01:20 GMT
Has anyone considered that we might not need any legalistic ownership paperwork at all? Seriously, groups put up websites all the time. Do you seriously think that every single bowling team, fantasy sports league, gardening club, or any other mundane civil organization, feels this bizarre obsessive need to throw money at the lawbros? How about just (a) delegating a secretary-treasurer, (b) appropriate them a stipend to get a P.O. box, and (c) direct them to get a gmail account & google voice number to conduct our business our us? My opinion is this is super naive and will never work unless the aspirations of the site are slimmed down considerably. Like, if you want this to just be a forum for old 2+2ers to chat, then yeah, maybe you can run it like a fantasy league or gardening club or whatever and enjoy it for a few years until the site inevitably dies. If you want the site to produce content and draw in new users and have fancy software or whatever, you can't do it with a pinkie swear. Certainty not with a group of poker players. |
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 18, 2019 2:16:48 GMT
Trusting the treasurer with $40/month? The domain holder (might be worth a couple thousand dollars at some point)? The admins not to skim ad money? I think the bigger problem is that if we have a Discourse server the site has to be setup, maintained, and backed up. That's a fair amount of work and sorta being on call, and like 3 people seem really into doing that? I'm not saying I'm not willing to do that, but trying to figure out some way that more could come out of it and still provide the service makes it easier to do. If we have to choose between one or a few people either holding all the keys here or holding all the keys with a Discourse & hosting package, I'm taking the latter ainec. Here we have no backups and are at the complete mercy of some company that none of us knows anything about. Does anybody even know what the ToS are here? I sure don't. Discourse backups are automatic. They can be shipped out to multiple people with a simple cron job. And I could have a a site up and running in less than an hour with workable if imperfect settings for this community. |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 18, 2019 2:30:48 GMT
If we have to choose between one or a few people either holding all the keys here or holding all the keys with a Discourse & hosting package, I'm taking the latter ainec. Here we have no backups and are at the complete mercy of some company that none of us knows anything about. Does anybody even know what the ToS are here? I sure don't. Discourse backups are automatic. They can be shipped out to multiple people with a simple cron job. And I could have a a site up and running in less than an hour with workable if imperfect settings for this community. I read a bit about free forums company. It's very OG and has a huge number of forums. Do you think we can do without the lawbros and just have a written agreement, might not mean much in court, but something between all the keyholders? It's not like anyone can run away with a lot of money. The only thing that will really be irreplaceable (if we do publish backups regularly) is the domain name. |
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 18, 2019 2:36:31 GMT
I read a bit about free forums company. It's very OG and has a huge number of forums. Do you think we can do without the lawbros and just have a written agreement, might not mean much in court, but something between all the keyholders? It's not like anyone can run away with a lot of money. The only thing that will really be irreplaceable (if we do publish backups regularly) is the domain name. The lawbros vs ad hoc written agreement and Discourse vs here seem like completely orthogonal issues to me. I'm not sure I understand the renewed interest in staying here or what that solves re: ownership. |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 18, 2019 2:50:06 GMT
The lawbros vs ad hoc written agreement and Discourse vs here seem like completely orthogonal issues to me. I'm not sure I understand the renewed interest in staying here or what that solves re: ownership. Staying here avoids the issue. Going to Discourse means someone has to sign up for hosting and have simplicitus point the domain there and everyone else has to move and not say "hold up, who said you get to do that?" If someone had set up a discourse or phpBB site with a domain on a machine they controlled on April 20th I don't think there's much chance anything would have changed after that. |
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 18, 2019 12:47:10 GMT
I'm still firmly in the GTFO camp and think "meh, let's just stay here" is a very bad plan for long-term viability. This community is either going to grow or it's going to die.
We have the opportunity to be in a strong growth position for what's going to be the most heavily followed political event(s) in history, and I believe this community has the ability to create something from that. idk what exactly, but I think that potential will never be realized on a free forum.
I'm also just generally opposed to using any free internet service where they hold and control the content, mine the user data, and sell my eyeballs to advertisers. "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 18, 2019 13:08:42 GMT
What I can say for sure 501(3) is more difficult that a coop. One of the most tricksy point in it, that it is kinda problematic to dissolve it.
We need a legal standing, because who the heck is going to carry the responsibility in case of legal issues. Definitely not zan.
We need to be somewhere, where we have control.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 18, 2019 13:27:41 GMT
What was the last thing that stopped the discussion of a coop? The anonymity?
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 18, 2019 13:35:34 GMT
Do we know enough of the pros-cons to put together a poll? Something like an OP listing the types and pluses and minuses and then a simple pole to vote for one?
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 18, 2019 13:55:20 GMT
Do we know enough of the pros-cons to put together a poll? Something like an OP listing the types and pluses and minuses and then a simple pole to vote for one? Uffffffffff Poll is a good idea. Poll with which question? I can currently say coop > non-profit and can more or less well put together argumentation for that. As far as I understood the current situation the last argument against coop was non-anonymity of members. (I think this can be designed in a more or less satisfactory way for everyone through the bylaws) |
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 18, 2019 13:58:47 GMT
What was the last thing that stopped the discussion of a coop? The anonymity? Nothing, it just sort of fizzled out like everything else around here before anybody got into the specific details. |
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 18, 2019 14:03:58 GMT
Do we know enough of the pros-cons to put together a poll? Something like an OP listing the types and pluses and minuses and then a simple pole to vote for one? I'd rather see models laid out with some specifics first. Pole seems premature. Ownership Model A
Executive power
Voting rights
Ownership
Legal entity
etc.
| Ownership Model B
Executive power
Voting rights
Ownership
Legal entity
etc
| Ownership Model C
Executive power
Voting rights
Ownership
Legal entity
etc
|
|
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 18, 2019 14:06:16 GMT
In a co-op, it would be something like this top-down: Elected Board Voting members/owners Registered users General public
The 2+2 model would be:
Owners Non-owner volunteers Registered users General public
|
|
alex
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by alex on May 18, 2019 19:47:15 GMT
I agree with the idea of moving to a more professional site and setting up a legal community-owned structure. This is the part of this project that is cool and can potentially attract new members or motivate existing ones. The more personally involved someone feels in an organization, the more active and productive they will be. We might have a critical mass of people currently to at least get this thing off the ground, but the longer we wait the harder it becomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rexx14 on May 19, 2019 0:11:16 GMT
I think the investment/ownership people will feel if we're a coop is a huge plus.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 19, 2019 6:11:01 GMT
In a co-op, it would be something like this top-down: Elected Board Voting members/owners Registered users General public
The 2+2 model would be:
Owners Non-owner volunteers Registered users General public
Do you see any other models besides 2+2 and coop as possible? Does anyone see anything else as possible? |
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 19, 2019 6:11:25 GMT
Has anyone any arguments against a coop?
If "yes", please suggest alternatives for legal ownership.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on May 19, 2019 8:51:18 GMT
I'm still firmly in the GTFO camp and think "meh, let's just stay here" is a very bad plan for long-term viability. This community is either going to grow or it's going to die. Personally id like to see you guys start a co-op move and take over the world. But you can get new posters here too. Not sure how many would come but if you get on the proboards directory some might show up.
Id guess this might make getting going harder with new people no one knows getting involved in ownership and stuff though.
|
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 19, 2019 11:57:48 GMT
Do you see any other models besides 2+2 and coop as possible? Does anyone see anything else as possible? We could do a typical corporate structure with voting shareholders. We might be able to legally organize just the forums as a social club under US law, which would grant tax exempt status. But co-op has always made the most sense to me.
Deciding who the owners are is mostly separate from the legal issue and needs to be solved first though. Broadly, that seems to be either:
a) One person, who operates with as much or as little community input as they see fit b) A small number of people, who operate with as much or as little community input as they see fit
c) A large number of people who democratically run things through committees and delegates
The problems with a and b are the obvious lack of democracy. The benefit is that things will move more quickly.
The problem with c is where we are right now. Far too few people involved and glacial progress.
Maybe this is the poll we need to have first? A straw poll among the entire community about how much it actually wants to own itself and the workload that requires?
|
|
|
|
Post by jbro on May 19, 2019 12:51:02 GMT
From your earlier post:
Elected Board
Voting members/owners
Registered users
General public
I think that looks perfect. And everyone should pay a small annual membership fee (enough to run the site, minus any revenue) to be a voting member. (Maybe tech/mod/board volunteers get fees waived in consideration of their efforts.)
Why can't we take the current pledged donations (something like $1200) to pay a lawyer to draft the docs? Is that not enough money?
|
|
|
|
Post by jbro on May 19, 2019 12:53:00 GMT
Voting members should elect a small board of decision makers. If we don't like what they do we vote the bums out.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 19, 2019 13:16:20 GMT
Do you see any other models besides 2+2 and coop as possible? Does anyone see anything else as possible? We could do a typical corporate structure with voting shareholders. We might be able to legally organize just the forums as a social club under US law, which would grant tax exempt status. But co-op has always made the most sense to me.
Deciding who the owners are is mostly separate from the legal issue and needs to be solved first though. Broadly, that seems to be either:
a) One person, who operates with as much or as little community input as they see fit b) A small number of people, who operate with as much or as little community input as they see fit
c) A large number of people who democratically run things through committees and delegates
The problems with a and b are the obvious lack of democracy. The benefit is that things will move more quickly.
The problem with c is where we are right now. Far too few people involved and glacial progress.
Maybe this is the poll we need to have first? A straw poll among the entire community about how much it actually wants to own itself and the workload that requires?
I actually agree very much with your post and I think it is pretty much a realistic one. I would say that social club without an incorporation is out of question because the legal liability remains personal without the incorporation. Incorporated social club is basically a coop. I think that the next step is to put the question out, not only who wants to have a say in mods decisions, but who is also willing to share work load. Because I have a feeling that some people have big illusions about how much work that all requires. I believe, or at least as far as I looked into that, the issue with anonymity could be circumvented by the bylaws, if we go for a coop. So the next step would be to formulate exact poll with OP. |
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 19, 2019 13:28:35 GMT
From your earlier post: Elected Board Voting members/owners Registered users General public I think that looks perfect. And everyone should pay a small annual membership fee (enough to run the site, minus any revenue) to be a voting member. (Maybe tech/mod/board volunteers get fees waived in consideration of their efforts.) Why can't we take the current pledged donations (something like $1200) to pay a lawyer to draft the docs? Is that not enough money? I have a feeling that you underestimate necessary workload. No one will want to do all the work is necessary for member fee. And it is also plain unfair. But that is currently not the problem. This things can be regulated by the bylaws. I don't think that you can get a lawyer to do all the work for us, not even for a lot bigger money. We need at least to have made a decision that "Yes, we want to be a coop" and have a draft of incorporation articles and bylaws. It is huge deal that catface has agreed to read over all this stuff. But it still needs to be done. And for now we have still difficulties to decide coop or not. |
|
|
|
Post by jbro on May 19, 2019 13:44:47 GMT
People are willing to do the work for free right now. All I'm saying is waive their required membership fee in consideration of that. Of course that's not going to attract anybody who otherwise wouldn't have done it for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 19, 2019 13:54:13 GMT
Yeah, I mean I can't speak for anybody else, but the amount of unpaid work I'd do for a co-op is actually pretty high, whereas the amount I'd do for a private entity I had no ownership stake in is zero.
Voting rights being effectively for sale might need further thought, although the possibility to work for it instead sounds good. Can't/don't want to pay this year? You can put in 6 months mod duty instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbro on May 19, 2019 14:08:47 GMT
Don't all/most co-ops work on that principle? Even big profitable co-ops like REI have an initial membership fee and that gives you voting rights and also the right to a dividend. And many co-ops do waive the membership fee in consideration for work. The food co-op in Hanover, NH is an example where a member can bag groceries or do other work so many hours per year instead of paying the membership fee.
Only owners should get the right to vote, but ownership shouldn't have a very high barrier to entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 19, 2019 14:16:00 GMT
I'm not opposed in theory, I just think it needs to be handled right. The one co-op I've been involved with had a monthly minimum work requirement, and serving on committees counted.
In general, 'work or pay' seems fine to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbro on May 19, 2019 14:19:25 GMT
And you can still post here without work/pay; just can't vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by zikzak on May 19, 2019 14:29:22 GMT
We could also have it so member/owners don't see ads on the forums, but everybody else does.
|
|
