My thoughts on how this site should work

When I took this on I intended that it should result in a genuine community site - and maybe a bit more consensual than was DPReview. Here are some general principles:
1. Community Ownership
I don't want a single owner (or shareholders) that can sell the site to a corporation that closes it down when inconvenient. I propose that the legal embodiment of this site be a UK company limited by guarantee. That means that it will be a limited liability enterprise, and no-one will end up footing huge bills if something goes pear-shaped. This is a model used in the UK for many charities and community organisations. It has no shareholders, just members (more later) who have a stake for as long as their membership lasts. Without shareholders it can't be bought by a corporation without consent of the members. It has by law to have annual membership meetings and those elect company officers. I would propose that we have a fairly small board with named individuals taking on specific responsibilities within the operation. I will call this company the DPRevived Foundation (or just Foundation) hereafter.
2. Membership
One of the things that came across strongly in the discussions on the old forum was that free access was important. I propose that this should be maintained with DPRevived, but that there should be another class of members, which I will call 'partners'. Partners become members of the Foundation. To become a Partner people pay a fee, which helps to fund the site. They also take on a very small slice of the liability of the company (say 10 UKP, about 10 USD or EUR) in the event of the Foundation becoming insolvent (that's how a company limited by guarantee works) - this guarantee ceases when they cease to be members. I propose partnership be available in annual and life forms, and that those that have played a significant role in the foundation of DPRevived.com be awarded free life partnership (and maybe some others in future, at the discretion of the board of the time). All people undertaking responsible roles in the site should be partners and will be given free partnership for the duration of those roles. Partners will likely get some privileges, maybe some dedicated forums, publishing rights when we get content pages and so on. Suggestions welcome
5. Funding
Partnership subscriptions will provide some funding, but I think we'll need to take advertising, and possibly some paid services (such as for sale a la FM). I've used Google advertising in the past , it's not too onerous.
4. Terms, Conditions and rules
Yes, we'll need them. If anyone here has legal expertise and can contribute text - please!
My ideas, feel free to discuss, challenge and suggest alternatives.

Here is my main problem. I don't any more want a site run by one supremo or a corporation. So the idea is to have a self selecting set of people run it. Most people coming to a web site don't really want to be very involved, but some do. So really the point of paying is not to create a second class of user, but to if you like 'invest' in the site. Voluntary donations are fine, but I'm looking for a way of people taking on some responsibility.

I'm glad that you like the idea. Maybe we shouldn't give the partners extra goodies, I'm uncomfortable with that myself.

It's all brain storming.
1. Yes, it likely will need staff at some time, but it needs income before it has staff.
2. Yes, that is one of the advantages of the Limited Company by guarantee model that I put forward. It means that all members get to see the accounts.
3. Good idea. Yes the mission needs to be formalised before the statement. I'm trying hard to take contributions and not impose my views on everyone.
4. I'm going one way and another on partner perks. I think people are evenly divided on whether or not there should be classes of membership. Time to try out the poll software?
5. At the moment I've looked at UK legal organisation, because that's where I am. I don't know enough to evaluate the pros and cons of different jurisdictions. It's just much easier for me to do it in the UK jurisdiction, which is widely seen a safe at least for a couple of months more.
6. Yes, I'd thought the same. Volunteer task list is about number seven in my task list.
7. Don't know. It's what I went with for better or worse, and I think trying to change now would just cause more disruption when we can least afford it.

All the best,
Bob

That would be something for the community to decide, but I personally have my doubts. 'Partners' investing money often want something in return, then take over completely and close you down for not fitting their corporate business goals.

I understand 'polite' being there, though I think its shouldn't have to be. I mean, I could add 'technically correct' ;-) . I think it's a great start -and maybe others could comment, extend and change.

1. Community Ownership
   How many board members do you prefer?
   3, 5 10, more?
   Do you know how high the yearly administration fees of Foundation are?

2. Membership
   One privilege should be the amount of webspace, this direct reselects
   the cost of the server hosting.

3. Terms, Conditions and rules
   must be based on the rules of the UK for Web social Media. EU/US rules
   may apply to.
   About Google advertising this could be limited to free use as a
   privilege for one time payment or regular Membership.
   A Payed app could be used to get some fund.

more than 5, not a lot more than 10 - enough such that the major responsibilities each had a definite and identifiable person associated with them

You can buy a package with all the legal submissions thrown in for about £200 per year, not too onerous. There are basically two things that need to be filed each year in addition to tax returns, including a 'confirmation statement' and the annual accounts. If one of the board is an accountant that makes things less expensive! So we need to find a UK accountant who is also a photographer ;-)

Possibly - I think the matter of member privileges needs to be discussed. Possibly it comes in the form of paid services, like gallery hosting.

Yes, ad-free for partners is a possibility - would require some software work.

That's the attitude I'm hoping that a lot of people will take, and supporting the project means being able to influence it, and it's up to the individual whether they exercise that or nor.

Sorry about that. There will be a reply. So busy I don't have time to get help - and also before dragging a lot of people in we need some kind of structure.

Thanks for that, really helpful

You don't have to do anything as a partner, it just means that you can if you want to. And if things start going in a way you don't like you have a bit of weight to throw around.

I don't think server migration, should we have to is much of an issue - at the moment we're running on a VPS with Ubuntu - no more reason that I'm familiar with teh provider and with that OS. But we can get exactly the same provision from many server providers.

I think there are many organisations which run on this model and have done for a long time. They are not exactly 'co-operatives', which tend to do with trying to run a profitable business, but we aren't trying to do that, just pay the way.

I don't think that we can do it with Misago, which is precisely the reason for choosing something that wasn't a stand-alone forum ssytem, rather a forum component on a powerful web framework.

It's mainly Bob - I just post a lot :)

Co-operative Governance can work. I run another forum where we have mutiple admins & mods. We all talk to each other and we all talk to the other members. I've only ever had one issue that caused an serious upset in 6 years of running it - and even that is all over now. But it does depend on the members wanting this (which I think we do on this platform)

Misago will develop. I've seen a test rig showing the next (potential) version and it looks good. It SHOULD (I hope) allow a migration without too much disruption. Obviously, if we went to another platform completely, that would be very disruptive, but I can't see that happening now.

Alan

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.

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