Should Senior Stack Exchange Community Members be enabled to vote Stack Exchange Executive Staff off the payroll?

Question

Stack Exchange Executive Staff will be under the impression - as company executive staff generally are - that the company is theirs.

But Stack Exchange is an unusual organisation very much based on a network / marketplace / community of expertise - comprising tens of millions of volunteer hours and hundreds of thousands of active volunteers, all volunteering and participating for the greater good.

In a very real sense those who participate most in the network / marketplace / community are those who are the greatest stakeholders in the organisation.

This being the case, should experienced Senior Stack Exchange Community Members be enabled to have a say when a company executive is inadvertently or pro-actively taking measures which injure the heart and soul of the organisation? Should there be more visible, transparent, direct accountability from paid executives to those from the community who have contributed most to build the value contained in the platform?

Could there emerge from the current crisis one of the first examples of a corporation submitting itself to community-based democracy, where the community around the platform (or product) has a significant say in who gets to be a paid executive leading the platform (or product)?

---

N.B. I am under no illusion that I am anything but a minnow in all of this. But I see the great damage that is being done in recent months and it does greatly - greatly! - disappoint me.

---

How this question is different from the "Calling for a Resignation" question

The question immediately above is fundamentally about opening up new areas in our society (in this specific case a commercial organisation) to participatory democracy.

Stack Exchange could make a good test subject because it is a highly unusual commercial organisation which exists and has the profile and status that it has, substantially due to its native volunteer community.

Further Reading on Participatory Democracy in Commercial Environments:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_(book)

Answer 1

...No.

I think that The Loop in its future incarnations will work to ensure that voices are heard from a broad and diverse group of stakeholders for the site.

But at the end of the day, make no mistake that this is still run and owned by Stack Exchange Inc.

You have no right to "vote" someone off of the payroll. This isn't a democracy. This is benevolent dictatorship.

Answer 2

I can't even fathom how this could lead to a healthy relationship between the community and the company. At this moment, SE employees don't even dare post on Meta because the backlash they receive give them major headaches, just imagine how bad it would be it we could fire them based on a poll made on Meta.

I don't agree with how they have managed the changes in the last year or two, but not to a point where I consider to request the right to fire people. There is nothing keeping you from not using their product if you don't like how they handle it, even though it would be frustrating as hell to quit when you have spent so much of your own time adding to the knowledge base.

I mean, how would you be able to work if you had this sword of Damocles hanging over your head at all times, ready to be dropped on you the second a fraction of your customer base vote you off.

On a side note, we have seen lots of questions going in the same direction as this one. Seeking [personal] vengeance at all cost is not going to get us anywhere. One can voice their opinion to their heart's content, as long as they keep a civil tone. But if your desire is to "hurt" the company, then maybe you are at a crossroad where you need to evaluate if you really want to stay here even though you don't agree with SE, or pack your stuff and walk away.

In the end, if half the user base decide to leave due to bad decision's by SE, then their daily traffic, and eventually their profits, will go down significantly, which will hurt them more than us complaining on Meta.

That being said, I consider myself as being part of "mad-at-SE" team, but I believe that attacking them on every occasion will not improve the current state of events.

Answer 3

Absolutely no way.

Irrespective of the current goings-on, irrespective of the staff member who (reading between the lines) this is obviously aimed at, this is not the way to resolve things.

We all want an SE where there is a culture of mutual respect between the company and the community; that SE is gone and we want it back, yes. But not this way. This way endangers that culture, but from the other direction.

Answer 4

This isn't our decicion to make and this is very unlikely to happen on Stack Exchange

You're talking about the model similar to Wikimedia Foundation. Some non-profits are owned by the community to some degree and allow members to have a say (through direct vote or representatives) in most of the decision.

Stack Exchange Inc is a private business. Participants don't make decisions here.

Stack Exchange Executive Staff will be under the impression - as company executive staff generally are - that the company is theirs.

That would be a delusion, they're paid employees, the Company belongs to its owners and they, ultimately, make staff decisions.

In a very real sense those who participate most in the network / marketplace / community are those who are the greatest stakeholders in the organisation.

This isn't written anywhere. The relationship between the Company and participants are laid down in Public Network Terms of Service

Participants agree to participate in the network on Company's rules.

By accessing or using the Services or the public Network in any manner, including without limitation by visiting or browsing the public Network or registering for an account on the Network, you affirm that you have read, understand, and agree to be bound by these Public Network Terms, as well as the Acceptable Use Policy and Privacy Policy

Participants also agree to license all of their content to the Company:

You agree that any and all content, including without limitation any and all text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, animations, and product feedback (collectively, “Content”) that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC-BY-SA), and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by you as reasonably necessary to, for example (without limitation): ...

So, no, everything here belongs to Stack Overlow and you don't have any real power over the Company. Still, you're free to:

• participate here without breaking the rules;
• publish your opinion on the Company here (if this opinion doesn't break the rules) or anywhere else (if it does);
• stop using Stack Exchange, if you don't like the terms;
• create your own Q&A website with different rules.

Answer 5

Obviously the community shouldn't vote to fire staff or leadership directly, e.g., in a meta question.

However, I think the community should have a voting seat on the board of directors. If the community were to ever actually organize in a meaningful way, I think that is exactly what we should demand.

I thoroughly disagree with the houseguest theory advocated by some users (that we are guests of SE and have no right to have a say in how the company is run). The software and servers that provide the platform are certainly important, but the value here is the expert content and its moderation. We generate and own that content. Through moderation activities we maintain the quality of that content. It's entirely appropriate for the company to be accountable to the community through a voting seat on the board.