Team hierarchy (admin/member roles)

[trebmuh]

I've been talking about LiberaPay with several software developer on the last years. And there is a concern that is coming quite frequently. Today, I've talked with a developer who is on another financing platform and is envisaging to move on LP. The same concern came up in the discussion then, because that isn't the first time that I've got this feedback, I've decided to take the time to summarize it here.

---

The concern in question is the fact that it's not currently possible to have 2 different types of people in the same team. Those 2 different types would be of this kind:

• one "admin" type who have full access to the team account
• one "member" type who have limited access to the team account

(Obviously, both type could receive donations.)

The "admin" ones could:

• add/remove a "member"
• --(select how much each "member" is receiving)-- <- scratch this one (see why on the first few comments just below)
• promote a "member" as an "admin"
• change the team profile page

The "member" ones couldn't do all of that, basically only receiving donations.

---

My personal experience is that I'm relatively on the same wave with 2 projects.

I've got one project already on LP which I'd like to be able to share some donations with some other people, but I wouldn't want these people to have the same kind of power-level than me on the LiberaPay project's account. A good example is the following: someone helping the project for a few months, then disappearing. It's actually blocking me to share money with those people through LP.

For the 2nd project, the same situation is actually a blocker for us. There are several people involved in the project with different level of involvement and it wouldn't be logical if everyone would have the same level of access to the potential LiberaPay account.

---

I've searched around the issues tracker but didn't find any issue like this while I've been having on the last year several discussions with different people which were thinking that this was actually strange and is probably be a blocker from their perspectives. One person told me that this could possibly be a reason of why there are so many "team" accounts with only one member on LiberaPay. While writing this message, I've checked that and there currently are 74 "one person teams" out of the 154 first teams (I checked all the teams with some income) which is roughly representing half of the teams who are receiving donations on LiberaPay.

---

After thinking about this for a while, I'm under the impression that this could be a good move for LP.
Thoughts?

[Changaco]

What you're describing is dangerously close to an employer-employee relationship. It could end very badly for both Liberapay and the team “admins”.

[trebmuh]

@Changaco : could you please elaborate? I fail to see how is that different from you doing this sort of thing here.

[Changaco]

Occasionally removing someone who is misusing the system isn't equivalent to routinely setting the remunerations of subordinates.

I'll try to explain the problems of your proposal in greater detail later.

[trebmuh]

Occasionally removing someone who is misusing the system isn't equivalent to routinely setting the remunerations of subordinates.

OK, I understand what kind of behavior you're trying here to prevent. If the only issue is with the select how much each "member" is receiving item, then just scratch it. Having the 3 others items seems already a good move to allow more "real teams" and less "one-person-teams".

[trebmuh]

I'll try to explain the problems of your proposal in greater detail later.

Any news her @Changaco ?

[trebmuh]

@Changaco ping

[Changaco]

If the only issue is with the select how much each "member" is receiving item, then just scratch it.

It isn't the only issue. The possibility for an admin to remove a member would also be problematic, like an employer's power to fire people.

Teams are supposed to work by consensus, but a hierarchy doesn't foster consensual decision making. Moreover a hierarchy doesn't provide any solution to abuses by admins, it only protects the admins from the less-privileged members.

I think the way forward for most teams is a system based on invoices, like Open Collective. The existing issues for that are #505 and #1108.

Invoices force the submitter to think about what they've actually contributed to a project and share these thoughts with everyone, thus increasing thoughtfulness and transparency. They solve the problem of “someone helping the project for a few months, then disappearing” that you mentioned in the initial comment of this thread. They could also allow contributors to ask for how much they want without limiting themselves to how much is available at the time.

[Csardelacal]

Sorry if I barge into an old thread and add a bit of discussion. I have been considering opening a liberapay account as a tip jar for our team. I lead the team with another person and we'd like to open this tip jar so people who enjoy the stuff we do can tip either us or the contributors that help us.

I feel your reasoning is flawed in assuming that within every team, every member has equal responsibilities. As a team leader I answer to the issues that my contributors and users raise. If I empower a user to change the setting from "auto" to "everything" and they suddenly receive the entirety of the team's funds I will encounter a few pissed contributors, and they'll be mad at me.

With great power comes great responsibility. With an admin / member hierarchy, every new member has to vet the admins and see if they mismanage the project. If everyone is a fully empowered member, new contributors/members would be required to vet every existing member.

About the invoices. I feel like it's not the same. The thing that makes Liberapay attractive to me is that I could setup a team, add everyone that contributes and Libera distributes automatically. It doesn't require people to 'demand' something, it just shares what users gave.

If I told my contributors to rate their work and tell me how much they wish to get, they would probably say that they do it for the users. And that it's not necessary for me to give them anything. It would give power to extroverts and people who are assertive, while disadvantaging people who struggle with these things. And I would like to be able to 'distribute and share' what users gifted us as a team.

I personally hate the idea behind open collective, because I see how it cripples creators and I know it would cripple me. I couldn't assert myself or my work time. And I'm certain their system wouldn't work for us. If their system is already in place, why make the same thing again?

On the other hand, I love LP's approach that sunlight is the best purifier. It exposes greedy people and makes sure that the team leads stay within reasonable bounds. I like the PWYW approach, and inverting it at the contributor level seems dangerous to me.

Just like Open Source repositories require a maintainer that will make the final call about what code goes on the repo, I think that teams need some kind of manager that makes the final call. I don't see how that's a employer-employee relationship at all.