I like the idea behind Gittip, but I think this is bullshit: "company are developed for the benefit of society as a whole, and not just the mutual benefit of the members of the cooperative" Most companies are developed for the society and for people and most advances in human history have been done by for-profit organizations. Even the ideas in capitalism (as stated in e.g. Wealth of Nations) are grounded in benefits for the society and for the people.
My point about benefit to society vs. mutual benefit was a technical one about the definition of an open company vis-a-vis the definition of a cooperative, "an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit"[0]. It wasn't meant to be ideological.
I love cooperatives. I started one: an organic produce growers' cooperative. I also love Wealth of Nations, and I love capitalism. The company behind Gittip, Zeta Design & Development, LLC, was started in 2002 as a for-profit company and was run that way for a decade. Here's me praising corporations:
Most real-life applications of discoveries that advanced humanity have been done by for-profit organizations. Applied science.
Most advances in human history have been done by individuals who were simply passionate about a topic, and they did not do it for money. Theoretical science.
> most advances in human history have been done by for-profit organizations
You mean most advances in (very) recent history right? And I am a bit skeptical about the claim that companies are developed for the benefit of the people. Again, I have a problem with your generalizations. At least in our field, a lot of the research is actually publicly funded.
>most advances in human history have been done by for-profit organizations.
Not even close. Also, see the article about how cartels are an emergent property[1] of a free market. Not that there really exists a better system than what we currently have, but don't kid yourself into thinking capitalism is some kind of benevolent savior of mankind. It's just not true.
A company that doesn't pay its employees is neither a company, nor does it have employees.
And honestly, why is "cost" for non-employees allowed, but not cost for employees? An "open company" makes sense in terms of radical transparency, but a term like that shouldn't be related in any way to banning monetary compensation.
I daresay the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania disagrees with you about whether Zeta Design & Development, LLC is a company.
Cost for non-employees is "allowed" for the practical reason that if it weren't, an open company couldn't participate in the economy as it stands today.
How is this different from most open source projects? Because it's a registered LLC? Because they have public policies enforcing transparency? Failing to pay your "employees" combined with an onerous set of requirements for them seems like a non-starter at worst, and unsustainable at best, since it takes all the fun out of volunteering. If I'm being held accountable and even liable for my involvement, I should be getting compensated for it. This just seems like the worst parts of corporate employment and open source projects mixed together for some reason; all the fun of filling out TPS reports, for none of the pay or benefits.
"An open company differs from an open source project in that an open company is a formal legal entity, and needn’t be about software."
The set of employees of an open company is much, much smaller than the set of people working on whatever-it-is that the open company nominally "owns"--really it's a commons. The only reason to have employees at all is to formalize access to private data such as passwords and private user data.
Gittip, for example, has one employee, me. If you counted up everyone who has weighed in on GitHub we'd have maybe 20 or 30 community participants by now? Many more depending on how you draw the lines.
If I understand you right, the "requirements" would apply to the small set of people with access to private data, not to the majority participating in building whatever-it-is together.
I know of one charity that is pretty open and transparent about its operating procedures, scholarly findings and statistics, finances including employee compensation, and pretty much every other bit of data that doesn't compromise patient confidentiality (they operate a hospital in rural Nepal):
I totally agree, which is why I'm working on a startup to make charities more transparent and allowing them to make use of the resources they can get once they do this. ([email protected] if anyone has any ideas).
1) If all products are priced at-cost, and no employees are paid, is that to be assumed there will be no products sold that aren't at least, in part, developed using third parties?
2) If everything is priced at exactly their cost, what costs are factored in to pricing? Do you factor sunk cost, or only COGS?
2.a) If everything is priced at cost, and there is no added price for value, do you expect that every product will sell past its sunk and production costs? If not, who covers the loss when a product doesn't sell enough to meet its cost of production. (For example, some products require a minimum quantity to purchase/build before they are priced at a point the market will accept, to achieve pure cost parity without loss, you'd have to sell every unit in the same fiscal year.)
2.b) If 2.a can be accepted as some products will fail to meet their objectives, who makes up the difference? I.E. who put their money up-front to manufacture the products, and absorbs the loss?
How will you solve the issue of fair pay among employees? Isn't it likely that public awareness and popularity would determine who gets paid, regardless of who does the work?
If this model is successful, and people begin to see whit537 as a kind of celebrity (like notch or moot) then how would the other employees work their way into the revenue stream?
I had a lot of things to say but now I just have the one question. What's so wrong with making money? I'm really interested. I think a lot of outsiders to our industry would be surprised to know how rampant to anti-money view is or at least against anything other than earning a very modest, and very simple living.
The incentive is the same as open source programmers have to work for free.
RE: non-profits ... from the post:
"An open company differs from a non-profit organization in that an open company does not itself accept donations, and it does not compensate its employees. From the open company’s point of view, whether and how its employees receive money and for what, is undefined."
0 marginal cost goods and organized, free labor test the foundations of capitalism and necessitate the development of new institutions. this project adresses both of these - and the economic possibilities of patronage/tipping. why the hell not?
[+] [-] amix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
I love cooperatives. I started one: an organic produce growers' cooperative. I also love Wealth of Nations, and I love capitalism. The company behind Gittip, Zeta Design & Development, LLC, was started in 2002 as a for-profit company and was run that way for a decade. Here's me praising corporations:
http://blog.gittip.com/post/25215503687/corporations-and-ope...
My question is, can we do even better?
----
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
[+] [-] rokhayakebe|13 years ago|reply
Most advances in human history have been done by individuals who were simply passionate about a topic, and they did not do it for money. Theoretical science.
[+] [-] why-el|13 years ago|reply
You mean most advances in (very) recent history right? And I am a bit skeptical about the claim that companies are developed for the benefit of the people. Again, I have a problem with your generalizations. At least in our field, a lot of the research is actually publicly funded.
[+] [-] aik|13 years ago|reply
I think most companies exist to make money. However the "invisible hand" often leads to mutual benefit.
[+] [-] DividesByZero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] funthree|13 years ago|reply
Not even close. Also, see the article about how cartels are an emergent property[1] of a free market. Not that there really exists a better system than what we currently have, but don't kid yourself into thinking capitalism is some kind of benevolent savior of mankind. It's just not true.
1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3494224
[+] [-] crazygringo|13 years ago|reply
A company that doesn't pay its employees is neither a company, nor does it have employees.
And honestly, why is "cost" for non-employees allowed, but not cost for employees? An "open company" makes sense in terms of radical transparency, but a term like that shouldn't be related in any way to banning monetary compensation.
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
Cost for non-employees is "allowed" for the practical reason that if it weren't, an open company couldn't participate in the economy as it stands today.
If you want transparency without the non-compensation, look into B Corporations: http://www.bcorporation.net/about
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
"An open company differs from an open source project in that an open company is a formal legal entity, and needn’t be about software."
The set of employees of an open company is much, much smaller than the set of people working on whatever-it-is that the open company nominally "owns"--really it's a commons. The only reason to have employees at all is to formalize access to private data such as passwords and private user data.
Gittip, for example, has one employee, me. If you counted up everyone who has weighed in on GitHub we'd have maybe 20 or 30 community participants by now? Many more depending on how you draw the lines.
If I understand you right, the "requirements" would apply to the small set of people with access to private data, not to the majority participating in building whatever-it-is together.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] loceng|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ReadEvalPost|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatpandas|13 years ago|reply
http://nyayahealth.org
[+] [-] brackin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drone|13 years ago|reply
1) If all products are priced at-cost, and no employees are paid, is that to be assumed there will be no products sold that aren't at least, in part, developed using third parties?
2) If everything is priced at exactly their cost, what costs are factored in to pricing? Do you factor sunk cost, or only COGS?
2.a) If everything is priced at cost, and there is no added price for value, do you expect that every product will sell past its sunk and production costs? If not, who covers the loss when a product doesn't sell enough to meet its cost of production. (For example, some products require a minimum quantity to purchase/build before they are priced at a point the market will accept, to achieve pure cost parity without loss, you'd have to sell every unit in the same fiscal year.)
2.b) If 2.a can be accepted as some products will fail to meet their objectives, who makes up the difference? I.E. who put their money up-front to manufacture the products, and absorbs the loss?
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
2) Sunk cost. The intention is to factor out wages and profit.
2.a) Maybe use Kickstarter here?
2.b) The community of people who want the product.
[+] [-] zende|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/140
[+] [-] fusiongyro|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfraze|13 years ago|reply
If this model is successful, and people begin to see whit537 as a kind of celebrity (like notch or moot) then how would the other employees work their way into the revenue stream?
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/27
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
https://www.gittip.com/whit537/
;^)
[+] [-] ethanpil|13 years ago|reply
Why are you not calling yourself a non-profit?
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
RE: non-profits ... from the post:
"An open company differs from a non-profit organization in that an open company does not itself accept donations, and it does not compensate its employees. From the open company’s point of view, whether and how its employees receive money and for what, is undefined."
[+] [-] mwhite|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potomak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chatmasta|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whit537|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasknoll|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredBuddemeyer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] terryk88a|13 years ago|reply
or he really believes this BS and has narcissistic personality disorder