/decloaks Hubski is a de-facto cooperative. The content of Hubski is of, for and by its users such that the commentary and discussion of any external link is usually of greater value than the external link itself. Therefore, the content producers, the artisans, the attraction of Hubski is its community, not its leadership. Leadership, then, can be seen as the officers of a mutual benefit organization rather than as vendors serving customers. Cooperatives do not function by donations, at least not in the traditional sense. Donations are best deployed in unidirectional situations where no reciprocation is expected or implied - earthquake relief, food drives, etc. For more bidirectional situations, such as church tithing, public broadcasting support, benefaction of the arts, etc, the organization generally reciprocates any donations with an in-kind gift to foster ownership and affinity - logo swag, limited edition merchandise and the like. Hubski is substantially more interactive than the average NPR station and far more dependent on its users for its offerings than any church. That you're posing the question this way underlines your recognition of this. I believe a donation system will not benefit Hubski in the long run for the simple reason that donation allows one to "wash their hands" of their commitment to the problem when the continued maintenance and success of Hubski is the responsibility of all those who use it. Team Hubski has shown itself to be exquisitely sensitive to the desires of its userbase and offering a token "shut up and take my money" approach is likely to focus attention unduly on money. On the user side, things become "you have my money, do what I want." On the owner side, things become "we don't have enough money to do what they want, we need to panhandle." If I were Hubski I would investigate cooperative charters. Shareholders are generally permitted votes and steering on a per-share basis, as well as the election of officers. These offices may or may not have the power to govern fundamental business decisions; often they function more as ombudsmen within the community. Fees for membership are determined via open calculation of operating expenses and necessary budget and any dividend at the end of the fiscal year is either divided amongst shareholders or paid forward into the next year's operating expenses. Shareholders often enjoy special privileges such as discounts on goods and services, preferential tech support, etc. I would also investigate restructuring as a B-Corp or similar. Although largely symbolic, BCorps do provide a useful halo effect as well as encoding "don't be evil" into the DNA of the entity. There may also be tax advantages and municipal incentives depending on the site of incorporation. /recloaks
I lit up at the mention of cooperative charters. Not because I know what they are, but because I have next to no idea. I have the time and desire to get involved with something radical and experimental in the dimension of online community. I want to do something weird, in the Austin, Texas sense of the word. But that is just me. I would get involved for reasons of personal growth. I understand that this may be a livelihood-of-the-organization conversation, in which case the issue is that sweat equity isn't unlimited, not what is it that I think is neat. But if this post is a survey of how users would like to see the site grow, count me in the crowd of those who want a community ownership driven site.
I like you and your mindset. "I don't know a lot about this, thus I must learn about this! How do I learn about it? By doing it! But what if its radical and weird? All the better! I've got nothing but time and motivation!" I agree with everything you said. I want to get involved with something revolutionary and forward thinking... it just feels so hard with the current state of things in the world. We have this amazing tool in the internet, yet we haven't realized its full potential yet. And every time we seem to be getting close to realizing that potential, financial problems or greed seems to drag us all back to reality. Having a completely untainted community sounds amazing; and community ownership seems like the way to do it. Count me in as well!
I also think I want this but I don't know what it is. Count me in unless it's a terrible idea!
edit: upon research my only concern about this plan is to have a strategy for getting out of the coop if necessary.
Thank you for resurfacing for this. I belong to a food coop, but I know almost nothing about coops in general. As such, I can't really give an opinion on it, but I can say that I am open to something as radical. I will look into cooperatives and BCorps. If need be, I am open to creating a structure that doesn't yet exist, maybe a hybrid of something that does exist with a unique ownership/governing structure. What we have here isn't optimally served by the most common model.
Okay so a lot of this is over my head and things that I don't fully understand or have experience with, but I'm glad you're still at least reading some of the things posted on Hubski. Hope all is well kb.
This is the idea I'm most comfortable with. I have no issue with a modest subscription fee or the like to keep the site independent and focused on its original goals. I really like the philosophy of this place, but whether it can maintain it through growth is an important test. This seems to me like the most sensible approach, and will encourage members with a stake in the community and values.