3 ms·
> This is something that works for companies with a clear ownership structure The ownership structure is clear, it is just unpopular within the community. Ther
by zelon88 5y ago
> This is something that works for companies with a clear ownership structure
The ownership structure is clear, it is just unpopular within the community. There seems to be this sense of entitlement among Freenode developers and volunteers. You never had equity, but you thought you did. Whether or not that is the result of being misled is irrelevant. You have no stake. That's what "volunteers" are. Non stakeholding contributors. You contribute so long as the direction of the business is compatible with your morals. Nobody owes you a community.
Why is anyone surprised that this napkin diplomacy failed?
- pmlnr 5y ago^^^ this If there isn't a legal entity, the thing can't be protected. If there is a legal entity, and you're not officially part of it, then you're not part of it when it comes to scenarios like this. Yes, it sucks. Yes, the internet is different from 20 years ago. (Yet one still can't own a domain in the sense of owning a book, just rent a domain for some time, so certain things haven't changed, but this is offtopic.) I've been where the former freenode staff is now. I was part of a community site a long time ago, where the actual owners decided to close it down, and there was absolutely nothing I could do, despite being a contributer, an organiser, etc - in essence, a volunteer - for them, because I wasn't on any paper, anywhere.
- zelon88 5y agoThank you! I also want to point out that this is normal free-market stuff. The community is obviously strong enough to leave this company practically high-and-dry, and it is also obviously strong enough to maintain it's own fork if it chooses to do so. This is just iteration at work. If the new Freenode owners can't fix their mistakes; they will fail. So what. If the old Freenode developers are serious, they will succeed.
- someguydave 5y agoI am not surprised. I don’t think any human on earth could give these “volunteer” “staffers” a command which they would obey.
- wowaname 5y agoI don't understand the scare quotes here, and I believe you are talking out of ignorance for the situation here.
- kmeisthax 5y agoCounterpoint: Business equity does not confer ownership over labor. In this particular case, all you own from your equity is... - A handful of servers (which are cheap) - A name and a logo - Community goodwill, much of which has already been set aflame If the people running Freenode leave, and the people who used Freenode leave, then you don't really have anything left.
- Karrot_Kream 5y agoFWIW I don't think you two are in disagreement. Even if the owner of the business owes the volunteers nothing (which imo is strictly true), the _value_ of the organization lies in the work and social connections of the volunteers. Them leaving is just part of business, and if the now evacuated Freenode eats crow for it, that's their problem given the volunteers did the work anyway.
- rcxdude 5y agoThe ownership structure was very much not clear to the volunteers. They had no contract with this company and as far as they knew the company (which freenode as a network predates) owned little to nothing of consequence. (and volunteers are very much stakeholders in any project, just usually not shareholders)
- wearywanderer 5y agoThe owner has the 'clear right' to fire volunteers who were never paid and have already quit.