[throwaway984393]

What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with running such a service. The typical "I'm a computer person, I can solve any problem with just code" thing.

If you want "open" public services, form a co-op or nonprofit to develop the service. Make all users 'members' who fund it. Make both the workers and users the owners. Create a public independent board to oversee it. Put any profit back into the service. The architecture will not matter.

[Jedd]

> What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with running such a service.

I feel this is somewhat harsh reading.

From TFA:

"Even if someone were to figure it out, the system is probably designed to be a globally scalable service, not a small clone being hosted for the benefit of a few."

I'm in the same camp as the author -- I appreciate the current public service, but don't expect someone else to do everything for me here if/when this service seizes up. I'd appreciate being able to replicate the features of the extant globally-scaleable existing system into something that would keep my needs serviced.

Cost-wise, the author does not seem to be demanding something for nothing, or on-going actions from someone else.

[rgbrgb]

This is a cool idea. Any successful examples of this happening that you can think of? I vaguely remember some co-op uber alternatives but haven't heard of them taking off without regulatory intervention (banning uber).

Edit: I would think the problems would be around consensus (getting people moving in the same direction) and lack of incentive (getting people moving at all).