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.
Please don't call this a "company" of any sort.<p>A company that doesn't pay its employees is neither a company, nor does it have employees.<p>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.
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.
Functional questions:<p>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?<p>2) If everything is priced at exactly their cost, what costs are factored in to pricing? Do you factor sunk cost, or only COGS?<p>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.)<p>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?
The open discussion on company decisions is the most open part to me (<a href="https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues</a>). That's more significant than releasing the source.
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?<p>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.