...and I totally support your private property rights.
I just don't think it can really be called a "Community" if it is really somebodies private property. It just seems a bit disingenuous for one thing to be masquerading as another and misunderstanding over this is possibly what led to the controversy described in the OP.
The name 'Community', particularly in this uber-decentralised environment; can absolutely be misleading. No argument.
I personally think the word 'Community' should be reserved for non-profits.
Of course, then you have duration questions.
Am I undertaking to keep it non-profit indefinitely?
If I change my mind, is loss of some members the only consequence?
What if I sell it to some Chinese guy and don't mention all this?
Absolutely. I think that transparency and some sort of declaration of intent or "vision" is important to avoid misunderstandings about what something IS or at least is intended to become.
Your questions are great and there are plenty of examples of people choosing personal enrichment at the expense of people who thought they had a say or stake in things - but when it came to it they really didn't. These kinds of situations need to be avoided as they can create incredible grievance.
I was suggesting "workflows" which is a bit of a dev term, but basically something could start out as one thing and morph into another over time (when it's ready and meets certain pre-conditions). For example, you could create an "Incubator" that could mature and morph into a "Community" or a "Club" or a "Company" depending on ownership and governance models that might evolve as it grows and matures.
...and I totally support your private property rights.
I just don't think it can really be called a "Community" if it is really somebodies private property. It just seems a bit disingenuous for one thing to be masquerading as another and misunderstanding over this is possibly what led to the controversy described in the OP.
The name 'Community', particularly in this uber-decentralised environment; can absolutely be misleading. No argument.
I personally think the word 'Community' should be reserved for non-profits.
Of course, then you have duration questions.
Am I undertaking to keep it non-profit indefinitely?
If I change my mind, is loss of some members the only consequence?
What if I sell it to some Chinese guy and don't mention all this?
Absolutely. I think that transparency and some sort of declaration of intent or "vision" is important to avoid misunderstandings about what something IS or at least is intended to become.
Your questions are great and there are plenty of examples of people choosing personal enrichment at the expense of people who thought they had a say or stake in things - but when it came to it they really didn't. These kinds of situations need to be avoided as they can create incredible grievance.
I was suggesting "workflows" which is a bit of a dev term, but basically something could start out as one thing and morph into another over time (when it's ready and meets certain pre-conditions). For example, you could create an "Incubator" that could mature and morph into a "Community" or a "Club" or a "Company" depending on ownership and governance models that might evolve as it grows and matures.