4 ms·

This would break a lot more services, including a substantial number of Open Source projects and communities (specifically, any that are primarily run by a comp

This would break a lot more services, including a substantial number of Open Source projects and communities (specifically, any that are primarily run by a company rather than a non-profit).

namewasmypw 7y ago
Maybe that's a good thing? Companies are ruining the Internet.
jasonlotito 7y ago
No it wouldn't. It's not just the fact that people are doing unpaid work. There are a number of other requirements that have to be met, which SE seems to meet with regards to how it handles moderators. Just being an unpaid moderator doesn't run afoul of the laws.
- danShumway 7y ago
  I'd really appreciate if you'd be willing to expand on this. It's not clear to me what the difference is between the moderation happening on StackOverflow and the moderation happening on Wikipedia, other than that Wikipedia is non-profit. But having non-profit designation be the key factor in deciding whether or not someone can volunteer seems like a rule that would have some really negative side-effects. The 5 points I see online are: - Degree of Control Exercised - Profit, Loss, and Investment - Skill and Independent Initiative - Integral Part of Business Are there others that I'm missing?
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > having non-profit designation be the key factor in deciding whether or not someone can volunteer seems like a rule that would have some really negative side-effects. This is literally the distinction discussed in the posted question and is pretty standard law in the US. What negative consequences do you see as a result of this?
    - danShumway 7y ago
      Not all Open Source companies are nonprofit. See Redhat Linux, Gitlab, Chromium, Docker. If a volunteer helps triage issues for these projects, is it a violation of labor laws? If only nonprofit Open Source companies can use the benefits of Open Source development -- community involvement, community moderation and support, 3rd-party patches, etc... that's a really big reduction in who can participate in Open Source, particularly during a time when we're increasingly worried about Open Source funding and sustainability. Gitlab even organizes events around community contributions.[0] If the effect of a law is to make it harder for a community to get directly involved with a product, that's likely a negative consequence. I really like that I can get involved with Gitlab. I don't feel like Gitlab is exploiting me. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/community/issue-bash/ https://about.gitlab.com/community/issue-bash/
      - jasonlotito 7y ago
        This is begging the question. > If only nonprofit Open Source companies can use the benefits of Open Source development -- community involvement, community moderation and support, 3rd-party patches, There is more involved here than any one of those things mentioned. There are certain requirements that need to be met. You listed the five criteria New York has, and so in New York's case, those requirements would have to be considered. Simply having moderators doesn't mean you run afoul of the laws behing discussed.
        danShumway 7y ago
        Sure, but... that's what I asked. I wanted someone to expand on the requirements that had to be met. Would anyone be willing to explain in more detail on how the criteria differ and why this doesn't apply to Open Source companies like Gitlab/Wikipedia/etc? I brought up for-profit companies like Gitlab only to clarify why I thought drawing a bright line based on purely nonprofit status as the only distinction would have negative consequences. > This is literally the distinction discussed in the posted question and is pretty standard law in the US. What negative consequences do you see as a result of this?
csomar 7y ago
If the Open Source project is free, then there are no profits generated from it. Doesn't seem to be applicable under this law.
- danShumway 7y ago
  You wouldn't say that Redhat is generating money from Linux?
  - freedomben 7y ago
    Red Hat's money comes from support subscriptions, which are all provided by paid employees. Red Hat doesn't use volunteers to provide support to customers. Volunteer work is done at many levels (linux kernel, GNU libs, GNOME, Fedora, etc.) but Red Hat does not make money from those projects directly (no more than any other company would/could). In fact Red Hat employs people to just work on those projects, and gives all the output to the community for free to benefit everyone. Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat but I'm speaking as myself, not as a Red Hat employee
CM30 7y ago
Not just services. It'd also theoretically break (if taken to an extreme): Wikis, since most wikis don't pay their admins/bureaucrats. Like most of the ones on Wikia, Gamepedia, the NIWA, etc. Old school fan sites, which often went with volunteer staff teams Quite a few media/fan run/gaming news sites, which also often have volunteer writers. etc
- dx034 7y ago
  It wouldn't kill Wikis, it would just force them to operate as non-profits. Maybe not such a bad change. If they want to be a for-profit, they can still have volunteer writers but no volunteer admins.
ShinTakuya 7y ago
Good. I've had enough of these companies tricking people into working for them for free.

This would break a lot more services, including a substantial number of Open Source projects and communities (specifically, any that are primarily run by a company rather than a non-profit).

namewasmypw 7y ago

Maybe that's a good thing? Companies are ruining the Internet.

jasonlotito 7y ago

No it wouldn't. It's not just the fact that people are doing unpaid work. There are a number of other requirements that have to be met, which SE seems to meet with regards to how it handles moderators. Just being an unpaid moderator doesn't run afoul of the laws.

danShumway 7y ago
I'd really appreciate if you'd be willing to expand on this. It's not clear to me what the difference is between the moderation happening on StackOverflow and the moderation happening on Wikipedia, other than that Wikipedia is non-profit. But having non-profit designation be the key factor in deciding whether or not someone can volunteer seems like a rule that would have some really negative side-effects. The 5 points I see online are: - Degree of Control Exercised - Profit, Loss, and Investment - Skill and Independent Initiative - Integral Part of Business Are there others that I'm missing?
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > having non-profit designation be the key factor in deciding whether or not someone can volunteer seems like a rule that would have some really negative side-effects. This is literally the distinction discussed in the posted question and is pretty standard law in the US. What negative consequences do you see as a result of this?
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Not all Open Source companies are nonprofit. See Redhat Linux, Gitlab, Chromium, Docker. If a volunteer helps triage issues for these projects, is it a violation of labor laws? If only nonprofit Open Source companies can use the benefits of Open Source development -- community involvement, community moderation and support, 3rd-party patches, etc... that's a really big reduction in who can participate in Open Source, particularly during a time when we're increasingly worried about Open Source funding and sustainability. Gitlab even organizes events around community contributions.[0] If the effect of a law is to make it harder for a community to get directly involved with a product, that's likely a negative consequence. I really like that I can get involved with Gitlab. I don't feel like Gitlab is exploiting me. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/community/issue-bash/ https://about.gitlab.com/community/issue-bash/
    - jasonlotito 7y ago
      This is begging the question. > If only nonprofit Open Source companies can use the benefits of Open Source development -- community involvement, community moderation and support, 3rd-party patches, There is more involved here than any one of those things mentioned. There are certain requirements that need to be met. You listed the five criteria New York has, and so in New York's case, those requirements would have to be considered. Simply having moderators doesn't mean you run afoul of the laws behing discussed.
      - danShumway 7y ago
        Sure, but... that's what I asked. I wanted someone to expand on the requirements that had to be met. Would anyone be willing to explain in more detail on how the criteria differ and why this doesn't apply to Open Source companies like Gitlab/Wikipedia/etc? I brought up for-profit companies like Gitlab only to clarify why I thought drawing a bright line based on purely nonprofit status as the only distinction would have negative consequences. > This is literally the distinction discussed in the posted question and is pretty standard law in the US. What negative consequences do you see as a result of this?

csomar 7y ago

If the Open Source project is free, then there are no profits generated from it. Doesn't seem to be applicable under this law.

danShumway 7y ago
You wouldn't say that Redhat is generating money from Linux?
- freedomben 7y ago
  Red Hat's money comes from support subscriptions, which are all provided by paid employees. Red Hat doesn't use volunteers to provide support to customers. Volunteer work is done at many levels (linux kernel, GNU libs, GNOME, Fedora, etc.) but Red Hat does not make money from those projects directly (no more than any other company would/could). In fact Red Hat employs people to just work on those projects, and gives all the output to the community for free to benefit everyone. Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat but I'm speaking as myself, not as a Red Hat employee

CM30 7y ago

Not just services. It'd also theoretically break (if taken to an extreme): Wikis, since most wikis don't pay their admins/bureaucrats. Like most of the ones on Wikia, Gamepedia, the NIWA, etc. Old school fan sites, which often went with volunteer staff teams Quite a few media/fan run/gaming news sites, which also often have volunteer writers. etc

dx034 7y ago
It wouldn't kill Wikis, it would just force them to operate as non-profits. Maybe not such a bad change. If they want to be a for-profit, they can still have volunteer writers but no volunteer admins.

ShinTakuya 7y ago

Good. I've had enough of these companies tricking people into working for them for free.