4 ms·

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

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?
        jasonlotito 7y ago
        > 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 mean, they don't meet the criteria because they don't. I guess I should ask: why do you think they meet all the criteria? What specific reasons makes you think that?
        danShumway 7y ago
        Well, taking volunteer commits to Gitlab just as an example: - Degree of Control Exercised Gitlab has the final say over every pull request, on what issues they'll consider pull requests for. Gitlab has a code of conduct and can ban contributors that violate that code. Gitlab prioritizes and labels issues that they want volunteers to look at. Seems equivalent to Stack Exchange's moderation queue. - Profit, Loss, and Investment Gitlab is a for-profit company. Open Source contributions get rolled up into their for-profit enterprise offerings. - Skill and Independent Initiative Fixing issues requires a great deal of specialized skill with the codebase, some of which is codebase specific and not generalizable. Individuals can choose to participate (similarly to Stack Exchange), but individuals are not free to pursue any project they want. Participation means following Gitlab's design process and looking at issue labels. Similarly to Stack Exchange moderation queue, Gitlab hands me a list of issues that are ready for development and I pick out the issues that I want to work on. - Permanence of Relationship Volunteer developers to Open Source projects often form long-term relationships with the projects they contribute to. An answer on the main post links to a 2009 guidance letter that calls out for a for-profit nursing home as being in violation of the law for bringing in volunteers to help with events.[0] With that letter as context, it's not clear to me whether or not permanence requires an explicit contract, or just an understanding that the activity or event is not a rare, one-off occurrence. - Integral Part of Business Developing software is an integral part of Gitlab's core business. It's true that volunteers don't do all of Gitlab's development, but is that a defense? If I was illegally exploiting employees by classifying them as volunteers, I couldn't just say, "but I only did it to a few of them." As far as I can see, the law doesn't say, "you can classify up to 10% of your core employees as unpaid volunteers." IANAL, I'm only here because I'm curious about any aspects of the law I'm missing. [0]: https://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/counsel/pdf/Volunteers-Interns/RO-09-0068.pdf https://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/counsel/pdf/Volunteers-Intern...

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?
      - jasonlotito 7y ago
        > 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 mean, they don't meet the criteria because they don't. I guess I should ask: why do you think they meet all the criteria? What specific reasons makes you think that?
        danShumway 7y ago
        Well, taking volunteer commits to Gitlab just as an example: - Degree of Control Exercised Gitlab has the final say over every pull request, on what issues they'll consider pull requests for. Gitlab has a code of conduct and can ban contributors that violate that code. Gitlab prioritizes and labels issues that they want volunteers to look at. Seems equivalent to Stack Exchange's moderation queue. - Profit, Loss, and Investment Gitlab is a for-profit company. Open Source contributions get rolled up into their for-profit enterprise offerings. - Skill and Independent Initiative Fixing issues requires a great deal of specialized skill with the codebase, some of which is codebase specific and not generalizable. Individuals can choose to participate (similarly to Stack Exchange), but individuals are not free to pursue any project they want. Participation means following Gitlab's design process and looking at issue labels. Similarly to Stack Exchange moderation queue, Gitlab hands me a list of issues that are ready for development and I pick out the issues that I want to work on. - Permanence of Relationship Volunteer developers to Open Source projects often form long-term relationships with the projects they contribute to. An answer on the main post links to a 2009 guidance letter that calls out for a for-profit nursing home as being in violation of the law for bringing in volunteers to help with events.[0] With that letter as context, it's not clear to me whether or not permanence requires an explicit contract, or just an understanding that the activity or event is not a rare, one-off occurrence. - Integral Part of Business Developing software is an integral part of Gitlab's core business. It's true that volunteers don't do all of Gitlab's development, but is that a defense? If I was illegally exploiting employees by classifying them as volunteers, I couldn't just say, "but I only did it to a few of them." As far as I can see, the law doesn't say, "you can classify up to 10% of your core employees as unpaid volunteers." IANAL, I'm only here because I'm curious about any aspects of the law I'm missing. [0]: https://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/counsel/pdf/Volunteers-Interns/RO-09-0068.pdf https://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/counsel/pdf/Volunteers-Intern...