Problem with package managers are they are quite expensive to run, so hard to manage in an otherwise open source ecosystem. There was some controversy around NPM before the GitHub acquisition https://www.businessinsider.com/npm-cofounder-laurie-voss-re..., which I guess is the exact problem a non-profit such as RubyCentral tried to solve.
I would GitHub would be quite well-positioned to set up infrastructure around a fork of RubyGems if things fall apart.
I don't understand yet how that relates to formalizing your decision structures as a group.
I'm sure NPM as a company has some form of decision hierarchy and RubyCentral does as well, but it seems like Ruby Gems doesn't (or didn't). I learned the hard way that writing this down is one of the first thing you should do in any kind of group formation process.
I get that organically grown tech projects don't have that from the start (and that they might not immediately recognize that they're a group at all), but I'd reckoned that an organization of the size of Ruby Gems, with such an importance, would have taken care of that a while ago and I think it's quite irresponsible that they didn't.
I think what you’re describing is a race to the bottom, and I also think a Country A(merica) focused on its soft power would believe Country C could be a part of a multilateral agreement to exclude the practices demonstrated by Country B from competition
If the owners overlap with the employees, then what part of the revenue is divided between salary, benefits and profit is often a tax-optimization question, which I think is the point in the GP. A single-person company paying themselves 200k in yearly wages or 100k in wages and 100k in dividends from 200k in revenue can look like a “non-profit” or a high-margin company with the same effect for the owner.
> I've been running an open source, libre project for closing in on 24 years now, and generating revenue from it for about 17 years. There's never been any "profit", but there has been revenue.
I regard profit as what's left of the revenue after you pay the people who work on the project and any expenses, which is the way most corporations and accountants would view it.
Because priority number one is getting you to watch their originals, so that you will keep subscribing as the market for movies produced outside the streaming services gets more competitive.
The big events gets featured on the home page, for anything you are probably better of searching for directors or reading reviews, and then finding where you can see it.
Yeah I’ve noticed this as well, and I have liked quite some of their original content … But if it gets to the point that they’re failing to keep me as a custoner at all, something must be amiss …
That is part of the less pretty side of how unions perform their capitalistic functions. Killing companies that threaten established worker rights, so as to not get races to the bottom. For another example they should also cull companies or even industries that have become so unproductive that they can no longer compete on compensation.
> Accounting for selection effects and the potential endogeneity of unionisation, the results show that increasing union density at the firm level leads to a substantial increase in both productivity and wages.
> After controlling for differences between studies, a negative association between unions and produc- tivity is established for the United Kingdom, whereas a positive association is established for the United States in general and for U.S. manufacturing.
Yes, you will see examples of this in the Nordics. However, the equilibrium is fragile and does need cooperative legislation to disallow obviously bad behaviour leading to races to the bottom. Things such as Reagan/PATCO and union/mafia ties are probably making it very hard to restore any sort of healthy equilibrium in the US.
I would GitHub would be quite well-positioned to set up infrastructure around a fork of RubyGems if things fall apart.