Who should own this community?

Site Feedback
1

This isn’t a question that often gets asked when creating sites like these. Someone usually takes the risk to set it up, pay for the technology and marketing required to launch the site, and then assumes full ownership … often in the hope of “making it big”.

But why does it have to be this way? Yes, the person who kicks this off and takes the risk has “invested” in the site, but it actually only lives because of the valuable contribution of its members. Why should they not have a say in how the site grows and is run, and a stake in its success?

I’ve been wanting to set up a community-OWNED space for some years but not had the opportunity, but I think that SE23 Rocks is the perfect opportunity.

While I am taking responsibility for funding and developing this site, I also want it to be a useful tool for the Forest Hill Society and its members. I hope that this synergy will help the site to grow, and so make it more useful, interesting and lively. As such, the Forest Hill Society will also want to have a view on how the site should be run.

However, I truly believe that a site is ultimately built by its users and members, and so I also want to make it possible for many more people to get involved in running the site.

“Getting involved” can take many forms. While there will be some small fee for this, this will not be very high and should be thought of as a commitment rather than as a way to make money for the site. It will also include asking these user-owners to take part in the decision-making - maybe by helping with moderation, joining the governing board, helping with tasks (like financial planning) or with design, marketing or communications.

What do you think? Does this sound like something interesting that you would want to be involved in? I look forward to reading your thoughts, comments and questions below.

There is no immediate rush to decide this, so I want to get it right. Either way I am committed to launching and growing this site, but I would like to think that we were doing this together.

1 Like
2

Hi Rob!

Questions:

  1. How much will this cost?
  2. How will the site be moderated? Will all posts need to be monitored or will moderators just step in if a complaint is raised? How is moderation for this type of site usually set up - a rota so that there’s always someone regularly keeping an eye on new posts?
  3. What’s the risk of spamming etc and who will deal with this? Will user-owners need a lot of technical knowledge to deal with that side of things?
  4. Can users upload photos? Will that need moderation too?
3

Big mixture of questions there @KittyKat :slight_smile:

  1. No idea - like I mentioned, this has not been decided. I don’t know whether it will be just about buying a single share, or being able to invest more, and what the value will be. At the moment I am only wanting to discuss HOW this might work and if anyone might be interested (in principle). It does not need to be done in advance since the launch has already been funded, and we still need to make the business plan for the site.

  2. That is not a question for this topic really. We will make it clear how the site is moderated as it applies to the whole site (however it is owned). The simple answer is that the vat majority of posts will not need to be approved in advance so anyone can post what they want - the exception is the History category where I want to have a different model of ‘topic’ posts. I will go into more detail about moderation and moderators elsewhere.

  3. There’s always a risk of spammers, but the platform has some tools built-in to help manage this. I’m not too concerned at this stage, and in fact all members can participate in the moderation by reporting posts as this helps to keep it in check.

  4. Yes. No, there will be no specific pre-moderation, but we will have rules about what is appropriate.

1 Like
4

There seem to be two options: (1) the site is owned by a co-operative non-profit like the Forest Hill Society. Or (2) the site is owned by someone who takes responsibility for everything and perhaps makes a little money.

I don’t especially mind which way we go. Both models depend hugely on good will and on the individuals involved. A site like this can be extremely important for a community, however, especially for us in Forest Hill - where the Council is a one-party system with no incentive for scrutiny from councillors, and where we have no local newspaper, radio or TV coverage.

5

Thanks for the input. I would slightly dispute the choice of just two options.

My idea is that we actually have a third model which is “owned by us” but run by 1) a committed and dedicated individual who ensures consistency and long term commitment, and 2) a governance board that includes a strong presence for the Forest Hill Society but also the active members of this community

How we constitute that Board will be up for debate, but I picture an elected role with terms of a year or two so no-one has to commit for too long, and we can get new voices on a regular basis.