Cooperative principle #1 is Voluntary and Open Membership. "open to all people able to use its services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership"
I think its reasonable to accept anyone, provided they accept the responsibilities that projects they host must comply with the standards outlined clearly as far as FLO. I don't think there's really "losers" in this - I have a Flattr account that receives between $.04 and $.20 cents a month - hardly worth the tiny webpage realestate used to display it. Flattr's policies ensure this is always a net-gain for them, including the free advertising for Flattr. Should I put up a Flattr button for something "trivial" like pytty (which I'm frankly shocked is so popular, likely due to Arduino projects) and only a handful of people sponsor it, so what? I think its also reasonable to *start* as a beta program in invite-only state, and I think its reasonable to initially grow progressively by member invites only, so that we're not deluged with projects that need to be evaluated. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 06/18/2015 02:00 AM, mray wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I have two concerns: > > 1. We need losers. > > 2. Users decide who they are. > > > > 1. > > We need losers because we can't make a commitment to the network effect > > without embracing the fact that distribution will differ extremely, even > > to a degree where by far MOST projects will not be "winners". > > > > 2. > > We already ask users to let go of *some* control of their finances, they > > should at least be able to decide who gets a chance - and who does NOT. > > A too strict filter on participating projects also makes finding enough > > "losers" harder. I'd expect the "proper" projects to be more realistic > > candidates anyway, though. We also could focus on presenting projects in > > a way that highlights what we regard as valuable in snowdrifts context: > > age, number of developers, number od translations, size of community, > > global distribution of authors, usage statistics, whatever else might be > > interesting. > > > > > > Otherwise I mostly agree with your post. > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > I don't see why we *need* losers. I think we *accept* that there will be > losers and that's okay. Snowdrift.coop is largely a consensus-building > engine that coordinates the community and discourages fragmentation. > Those qualities are good. But I wouldn't say that having losers is > *necessary* for our success. > > I'd put it this way: if we have too much bureaucracy keeping out > potential losers, that means we are taking too much top-down control and > censorship instead of letting the consensus mechanism and the natural > market make the decisions. > > I still see no problem with opening up the gates slowly by getting > likely successful projects in first. Losers aren't *needed* per se… > > I certainly do not want to frame our system as having winners and losers > even though that isn't crazy. We aren't forcing a zero-sum game where > there doesn't have to be one because we'll encourage people to add funds > to cover all their pledges (versus Flattr, for example, which makes no > effort to increase the size of the pie — they just split up the pie into > smaller and smaller pieces). > > -- > Aaron Wolf > co-founder, Snowdrift.coop > music teacher, wolftune.com > > -- > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
