3 ms·

RFC: Organizations for Sourcehut

55 points by mroche 4y ago

threatofrain 4y ago
> Up to some percentage of the membership of an organization (say, for the sake of argument, 50%) must have a paid SourceHut account, either directly or through financial aid. Users can form grassroots organizations on SourceHut so long as a sufficient number of them have paid accounts, with no further fanfare regarding billing. Interesting billing model, although I can imagine many orgs would rather have a simpler billing scenario even if it were more expensive.
- kevincox 4y ago
  Yeah, paying for accounts for half of your employees seems quite strange. I like that it allows otherwise paying users to create orgs but it creates weird politics like stated. What about just allowing paying users to create many (some high number) orgs for up to 5 people? Maybe scaling a bit if multiple paying users are inside. Then bigger orgs need to be paid.
  - twic 4y ago
    The expectation is that companies will pay for accounts for all their developers, not half. The post explains pretty clearly: > Users who are members of an organization and have a paid account, regardless if by their own means or by way of sponsorship from the org, have access to both the org's resources and private ownership of resources on SourceHut, e.g. can submit builds.sr.ht jobs on their own account. Org members with unpaid accounts can access the org resources, but cannot hold private resources on SourceHut. > The goal of this approach is to allow users to form grassroots orgs without too much hassle over payment; to allow companies and formal organizations to manage billing centrally for their members; and to balance things such that adding Joe Support Tech to the bug trackers does not mean you have to pay for a full SourceHut account for them, while still incentivizing people to pay for more than 50% if their members would benefit from access to private resources (e.g. the dev team might all have paid accounts regardless of if it exceeds the 50% minimum, just because it's worth the money to them).
- c7DJTLrn 4y ago
  It sounds like a nightmare to manage. Do you hand 10 employees a business card? What if one of them forgets to update the billing info after it expires?
  - twic 4y ago
    The next paragraph says: > Additionally, organizations may have their own billing information associated with the org itself. They can use this to sponsor the accounts of their members, allowing the billing for a tightly coupled group of users (e.g. staff members at a company or organization) to have access to centralized billing. Through this they can meet the 50% requirement without having individual members pay up. So companies can do the usual thing of paying for a bunch of accounts for their users. It's just that individuals can also form organisations without having to set up collective billing.
- thijsr 4y ago
  The paragraph right after says > Additionally, organizations may have their own billing information associated with the org itself. They can use this to sponsor the accounts of their members, allowing the billing for a tightly coupled group of users (e.g. staff members at a company or organization) to have access to centralized billing. Through this they can meet the 50% requirement without having individual members pay up. Organizations can have centralized/simpler billing with this proposal
naniwaduni 4y ago
> An emergent behavior of this system is that a user who is a member of several organizations can have their account sponsored by one of them and then have their paid account contribute to the 50% threshold of _all_ of them. The politics of who pays for whose account is not my problem, thank you, good luck sorting that out. Well, that sure isn't a disaster waiting to happen!
- temp2022account 4y ago
  Drew just doesn't want to have to deal with kids while being able to finance a non-megacorp-owned place for repositories, sourcehut is less expensive than netflix. IMO the true disaster is a generation of freeloaders demanding stuff all the time; they end up creating the perverse incentives that cause advertising to have more governing/mind control power than our states.

55 points by mroche 4y ago

> Up to some percentage of the membership of an organization (say, for the sake of argument, 50%) must have a paid SourceHut account, either directly or through financial aid. Users can form grassroots organizations on SourceHut so long as a sufficient number of them have paid accounts, with no further fanfare regarding billing. Interesting billing model, although I can imagine many orgs would rather have a simpler billing scenario even if it were more expensive.

kevincox 4y ago
Yeah, paying for accounts for half of your employees seems quite strange. I like that it allows otherwise paying users to create orgs but it creates weird politics like stated. What about just allowing paying users to create many (some high number) orgs for up to 5 people? Maybe scaling a bit if multiple paying users are inside. Then bigger orgs need to be paid.
- twic 4y ago
  The expectation is that companies will pay for accounts for all their developers, not half. The post explains pretty clearly: > Users who are members of an organization and have a paid account, regardless if by their own means or by way of sponsorship from the org, have access to both the org's resources and private ownership of resources on SourceHut, e.g. can submit builds.sr.ht jobs on their own account. Org members with unpaid accounts can access the org resources, but cannot hold private resources on SourceHut. > The goal of this approach is to allow users to form grassroots orgs without too much hassle over payment; to allow companies and formal organizations to manage billing centrally for their members; and to balance things such that adding Joe Support Tech to the bug trackers does not mean you have to pay for a full SourceHut account for them, while still incentivizing people to pay for more than 50% if their members would benefit from access to private resources (e.g. the dev team might all have paid accounts regardless of if it exceeds the 50% minimum, just because it's worth the money to them).
c7DJTLrn 4y ago
It sounds like a nightmare to manage. Do you hand 10 employees a business card? What if one of them forgets to update the billing info after it expires?
- twic 4y ago
  The next paragraph says: > Additionally, organizations may have their own billing information associated with the org itself. They can use this to sponsor the accounts of their members, allowing the billing for a tightly coupled group of users (e.g. staff members at a company or organization) to have access to centralized billing. Through this they can meet the 50% requirement without having individual members pay up. So companies can do the usual thing of paying for a bunch of accounts for their users. It's just that individuals can also form organisations without having to set up collective billing.
thijsr 4y ago
The paragraph right after says > Additionally, organizations may have their own billing information associated with the org itself. They can use this to sponsor the accounts of their members, allowing the billing for a tightly coupled group of users (e.g. staff members at a company or organization) to have access to centralized billing. Through this they can meet the 50% requirement without having individual members pay up. Organizations can have centralized/simpler billing with this proposal

naniwaduni 4y ago

> An emergent behavior of this system is that a user who is a member of several organizations can have their account sponsored by one of them and then have their paid account contribute to the 50% threshold of _all_ of them. The politics of who pays for whose account is not my problem, thank you, good luck sorting that out. Well, that sure isn't a disaster waiting to happen!

temp2022account 4y ago
Drew just doesn't want to have to deal with kids while being able to finance a non-megacorp-owned place for repositories, sourcehut is less expensive than netflix. IMO the true disaster is a generation of freeloaders demanding stuff all the time; they end up creating the perverse incentives that cause advertising to have more governing/mind control power than our states.