Yes cooperative style governance works but it has its pitfalls that we should be aware of, in contrast to privately owned entities which are much simpler to manage. I just wanted to mention it. I'm not suggesting DPRevived should be private, but not shy away from being slightly for profits. Profit for future growth.
I suppose Misago would work for now, but it has limits and I'm glad Bob is aware of this already.
One-time? Monthly? Yearly?
I have no ideas about legal side, but can partners just deposit this slice of liability initially? Like I can agree to pay some XX €/month + initial 10€, which will be used to build 'base capital' to cover liabilities (I don't know english term for it, I hope it is understandable).
I personally don't need any privileges. I think little badge on avatar is enough :) I think the only privileged users should be moderators (+ admin team of course), so may it be possible to grant some privileges by some other criterias (like on stackoverflow), but never based on financial contribution.
Same for subscriptions and donations - badges are nice, privileges not.
And sorry for my non-english background, maybe I didn't understand this thing correctly - what will be difference for me being a partner or just a subscriber? I mean other than to have some slice of liability and vote in meetings?
Agreed. I think that would be a good approach.
Among other things, it takes account of the fact that there will be many casual visitors to the site, lurkers and infrequent posters, who would/will nevertheless benefit from the same access that everyone else has -- even if they don't have the resources or rationale for $$ "buy in" (on whatever basis might be contemplated).
You could also add "rational", but since f-stops go up and down by a factor of sqrt 2, that would limit discussion a bit. : )
Hey GB , good to see you here.
I took a while to think of a user name -- didn't like that no spaces were allowed. Was gonna go with my wife's new nickname for me, ダメ人間, but Japanese isn't allowed either. So, are you going to be a mod? : )
Which is lucky, because it turns out that granting paid members privileges causes a tax problem. Also, I wouldn't call what moderators get 'privileges', that's the wrong way of thinking about it. They get extra permissions to allow them to do the job, but as soon as they that thinking that they are privileged we're on the slippery slope to DPReview style moderation.
E-nglish as S-econd L-anguage?
heres my mod profile picture :-) that should fix the shenanigans
I think your current avatar would do quite well too! 😀
Yes. I think that's so funny because long ago a guy on a forum used "I'm ESL!" all the time to explain his mistakes. I didn't know what it meant and for a long time thought it was some horrible disease. 😄
Which perhaps it is, if you take the original, literal and "semantically deconstructed" meaning of disease - meaning a lack of ease.
People for whom E is a SL Are apt to be a bit less "at ease" with it than all us EFLs. : o
Hmm, the fact that english is not my first or second language (it is distant third with heavy IT bias - EdTLwhITb?) makes such distiction (privileges vs permissions) a bit fuzzy to me. I didn't mean creating privileged users class, I used term 'privileges' as in computer world - permissions to perform some actions.
Random quote from stackexchange: "Privilege is a permission given to an individual or group."
Just for explanation :)
I don't know how far you have got in establishing how community ownership is going to work. Perhaps an idea could be to think of this as a members club where there are Guest (free) accounts and various levels of paid membership? I belong to a site that has this type of structure it is based in France is governed by French law and doesn't have a forum it is more akin to Flickr.
If dprevived provided hosting for images in a personal directory, the membership fee could determine the number and size of images stored. I don't know if such a structure would cause the tax problem previously mentioned.
On another thread it has been suggested that having paid members could cause issues if in the process of moderation someone was suspended or banned. Could this be avoided if the payment was for the hosting not for access to the forum which is free and open to everyone (unless suspended or banned). Below is part of the structure of membership levels for the site I'm a member of. The details would have to be changed to work for this site, it's just an example of how things can be done.
David
First of all, happy Eastern!
Secondly: The absolute best photography forum I know is www.belgiumdigital.com/ , with an annual membership fee of € 55
Language is Dutch.
Founded in 1999, it still works very well and is profitable.
Very friendly communication between members, sharing photography' passion, pictures and knowledge... No anonymous participation, I mean the staff knows "who is who"...
There is a topic on the closure of dpreview: translation: For free doesn't work, Dpreview closing.
TMHO the power of Dpreview was the classic written camera reviews section, not the fora.
Kindest regards,
Stany
BTW, I posted this reaction already in another topic, but I think here is the appropriate thread...
Interesting - for me the power of DPReview was the fora - there were so many members, that whatever you asked, someone, somewhere knew the answer.
Alan
Absolutely disagree. People signed up for DPRreview to participate in forums. To read reviews you do not have to sign up. While reviews were good, they were one of many available. When I was looking for something, I've read as many as possible. And I said this in your first attempt, I wouldn't touch with 10' pole a forum requiring personal information. Out of curiosity, what staff of your forum does with knowing who is who? As for "bad apples" there were "ignore" and "complain" buttons.
