If it could, should OCR start compensating their staff?

[Native Jovian]

It seems to me that if we're talking about paying employees, it would be "administrative" people rather than "creative" people.  Paying remixers, judges, album directors, etc would be weird, but someone like a lawyer, accountant, or web developer seems reasonable to me.  I'm sort of assuming that this would all be happening after OCR gets official non-profit status, though.

[Newt]

2 hours ago, Neblix said:

I'm asking you to clarify what you said, because I don't understand how it answers my question. I asked why contracting outside work instead of internally contracting work is different in principle, and you responded by saying the organization needs to act in accordance with its goals, not the interests of its constituent members. If how I interpreted that isn't correct as you say, then you need to explain what you're saying instead of just saying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

[Platonist]

15 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

OC ReMixers ARE OCR -- if ever there was a staff responsible for a site existing, it's us. 

Last time I checked OCR Staff is made up of OC ReMixers, but I also want to point out that the Staff obviously do more than "us". Submissions, website work, organization, etc.
I don't remember ever doing anything staff-like on here. If you think you are more useful than the ones operating the site, just because you're an active submitter, then you need to get your head out of your ass, sir.

[Brandon Strader]

I think your argument isn't worth wasting the time to debate because it's needlessly close minded, so have a good day

[Platonist]

10 minutes ago, Brandon Strader said:

I think your argument isn't worth wasting the time to debate because it's needlessly close minded, so have a good day

Haha. Brandon called me close-minded. The irony!

On Topic:
While I don't think that OCR's money should go to anything besides the site itself, even in surplus, if Staff would be payed, it should be for the things I mentioned above.

[timaeus222]

8 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

I think your argument isn't worth wasting the time to debate because it's needlessly close minded, so have a good day

Come on, dude. If anything, it's NOT to your benefit to ignore a sensible argument, and it IS close minded on your part. I'm saying this because you sound like you have a thing against OCR making money and have constructed a conspiracy theory as to what they plan to do with it, no matter what the staff or zircon tell you. You need to open your mind to others' arguments.

WE (OC ReMixers) are not staff, except for a few (and no, you are not staff), e.g. OA, Jose, etc, especially not the staff that is "responsible for the site['s] exist[ence]", in your wording. OC ReMixers don't run and maintain the site (operating costs, bug fixes, web design, judging, etc), the staff do. And if the staff decided to shut down the site, then clearly the site wouldn't exist, and thus, OC ReMixers (those who are NOT staff) are NOT in complete control of the site's existence. The staff is just as important as the ReMixers themselves, if not more, when it comes to keeping the site up and running.

When it comes to giving the site content to further its mission, OC ReMixers can be considered contributors, to be sure, and in that regard, we are important. But don't think for a second that OC ReMixers (who are not staff) are the complete OCR organization in and of itself. That IS close minded.

[Nabeel Ansari]

12 hours ago, Newt said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

Can you please lay out your point in plain english? None of this answers my question. Why are you so hellbent on being cryptic? I ask you how paying outside people is principally different than paying inside people, you tell me that "an organization must act in the interests of its goals not in the interests of its constituent members", so I ask if by that you mean the act of paying inside people for work is acting in the interests of its constituent members (which would, logically, mean that is the principal difference, so perfectly valid point), but you tell me no (so that's not the point, we're back at square one), so I ask you to clarify what you mean then, and now you're linking me to broad topics on wikipedia.

At this point I'm actually figuring the answer was "yes, that is what I'm saying" and you're just being needlessly difficult about it and sore about the fact that someone didn't immediately understand the intention of what you were saying and feel insulted that you're being prompted for more detail and clarification.

[Newt]

36 minutes ago, Neblix said:

Can you please lay out your point in plain english? None of this answers my question. Why are you so hellbent on being cryptic? I ask you how paying outside people is principally different than paying inside people, you tell me that "an organization must act in the interests of its goals not in the interests of its constituent members", so I ask if by that you mean the act of paying inside people for work is acting in the interests of its constituent members (which would, logically, mean that is the principal difference, so perfectly valid point), but you tell me no (so that's not the point, we're back at square one), so I ask you to clarify what you mean then, and now you're linking me to broad topics on wikipedia.

At this point I'm actually figuring the answer was "yes, that is what I'm saying" and you're just being needlessly difficult about it and sore about the fact that someone didn't immediately understand the intention of what you were saying and feel insulted that you're being prompted for more detail and clarification.

It is not what I said though, nor does it follow. I have neither the time, inclination, or responsibility to educate you on corporate ethics or how business is transacted among organizations.

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 hour ago, Newt said:

It is not what I said though, nor does it follow. I have neither the time, inclination, or responsibility to educate you on corporate ethics or how business is transacted among organizations.

So why are you participating in this thread if you're not going to say anything of substance and are outright refusing to do so when prompted? Why are you wasting your own time and mine? I asked you to plainly state your point, you continue to demonstrate that you perhaps don't actually even have one. I'm not even disagreeing with you, because I don't know what you're saying, and you're refusing to rephrase it even once. Unbelievable.

So I'll ask the question again, for someone else to answer:

"Why, in newt's scenario, is compensating other outside parties for doing work for OCR different by principle than compensating OCR's own staff for doing the same tasks (assuming they had time, obviously)?"

[Newt]

5 minutes ago, Neblix said:

So why are you participating in this thread if you're not going to say anything of substance and are outright refusing to do so when prompted? Why are you wasting your own time and mine? I asked you to plainly state your point, you continue to demonstrate that you perhaps don't actually even have one.

I did state my point. Quite plainly. I have nothing to add to it because it's not even really a question, it's just how things work.

If you do not understand the discourse, this is not my problem and perhaps you should take some initiative to educate yourself.

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 minute ago, Newt said:

I did state my point. Quite plainly. I have nothing to add to it because it's not even really a question, it's just how things work.

If you do not understand the discourse, this is not my problem and perhaps you should take some initiative to educate yourself.

Okay, so answer this other question, then:

Why, in your scenario, is compensating other outside parties for doing work for OCR different by principle than compensating OCR's own staff for doing the same tasks (assuming they had time, obviously)? 

[Newt]

3 minutes ago, Neblix said:

Okay, so answer this other question, then:

Why, in your scenario, is compensating other outside parties for doing work for OCR different by principle than compensating OCR's own staff for doing the same tasks (assuming they had time, obviously)? 

Because there are a significant number of hoops all parties need to jump through to ensure that the actions are in line with the interests of the organization.

For small transactions, this is typically a non-issue, but for significant contracts you want to ensure that you get the best output for the best price. You would not just give a contract for several months of work to someone without ensuring that the bid is fair. It may be fair. That's not the issue. The issue is that you would need to check. Presumably when you're soliciting outsiders, you're soliciting more than one and this becomes less an issue. When soliciting outsiders, care also needs to be taken to note any conflicts around that outsider and members of your organization. Any interested party would need to recuse themselves from involvement in related decisions. While I'm familiar with many of these considerations, it is not my area of expertise, so I would prefer not to delve into the minutiae. I assure you there is quite a bit of minutiae.

Needless to say, this is an area for which these 'questions' have been decided long ago; it's not really a topic of debate. Treating it as such will not make it one.

If you're really interested in learning about this, look into sales processes and contract negotiation, along with their ethical considerations esp as relates to charities.

[Bleck]

newt and brandon's posts demonstrate why this topic should likely be discussed behind closed doors

[Newt]

2 hours ago, Bleck said:

newt and brandon's posts demonstrate why this topic should likely be discussed behind closed doors

I don't see what my posts have to do with brandon's.

But yes, employee and/or executive compensation really isn't an issue the broader public should concern themselves with. Unless something untoward is going on. Which isn't the case.

[Pavos]

One thing I've learned in organizing several platforms with volunteers: including money changes things. Sure, the people in staff now are not doing it for extra money, but that could be an incentive for people to push for being a staff member. You don't want that line of thought. It also spawns a lot more conspiracy-theories, something you also want to avoid when you're reliant on contributions of others (some if the theories are even going around now that the staff isn't even getting paid). Last but not least: you have to divide the money. Does everyone get an equal share? Or should you get more if you get involved more? Those can be toxic discussions as well.

My experience is that these things always get out if hand, no matter how good the intentions see. Compensation for expenses on the other hand works quite well usually (fully compensated travels to conventions and such)