"the community" being some tiny subset of busybodies out of an OOMs-larger body of users that don't want to be bothered?

Real question, I don't know anything about Codeberg or its community.

▲

alloyed 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

iirc, it's a consumer co-op. So think of it as a vote of all users willing to pay for the membership to the service, who (correspondingly) are more likely to be power users/"activist" in the "activist investor" sense.

This can be contrasted with a private company, which will often have a "activist investor", the actual owner!

▲

iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Given that the actual number of paying users is probably low, it sounds like it would be relatively cheap to disrupt policy for someone with deep pockets.

▲

masafej536 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

this is a failure mode of consumer co-op that never occured to me. I thought the idea was bullet proof.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	lmz 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How is this a failure mode? Sounds like a good idea to me to let the members decide who they want in the club. Just wish this could also be done for national borders.

▲

trentor 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Codeberg is a community steered project. If participating isn't something you're interested in, it's probably not the right fit for you. There are other Forgejo hosts (you could even be one yourself) where you can be the king of your own castle.

▲

sergiotapia 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This sounds like a very dumb decision to you and I and most, but see you don't use codeberg. I don't use codeberg.

So it's totally fine to poke fun, and totally fine for them to do whatever they want. We aren't part of that community!

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]