Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jdtig 588 days ago
I don't think the point of the article is that everything was intentional.

He leads with the differentiators from WordPress because WordPress alternatives are a big conversation at the moment. This is a chance to inform people about how Ghost chose to be different: Non-profit, no plugins, etc.

But the final section ("Governance & the road ahead") seems like a subtle admission that the current Ghost structure wouldn't prevent a BDFL from going off of the rails. Maybe it's too subtle, since he doesn't explicitly connect statements like these:

> Neither myself nor Hannah own any shares, assets, domains, trademarks, or other companies related to Ghost. Everything is owned by the Foundation.

> From the beginning, Ghost's governance structure has had a board of trustees made up of its two founders, myself and Hannah.

I think Matt showed that some of the open-source-foundation shell game isn't real: There's a WordPress Foundation, and WordPress.org, but it really all belongs to Matt.

So, if Ghost can follow through on changing it's governance structure, it gains another differentiator from WordPress.

2 comments

The main point of this article is to explain Ghost's unique approach to open-source publishing software through its non-profit foundation model and its vision for democratic governance.

The author (Ghost's original co-founder) outlines how Ghost differentiates itself by:

- Operating as a profitable non-profit foundation with no owners, where all profits are reinvested into the project

- Maintaining independence from investors and commercial interests to better serve its community's needs

- Focusing exclusively on publishing workflows rather than trying to be an all-purpose platform

- Planning for sustainable long-term governance, by

- Intentionally limiting the organization to ~50 people

- Planning to expand its board of trustees beyond the founders

- Growing an ecosystem rather than a single large company

I emphasized the active, concrete verbs (actually gerunds fwiw) so that you may see how they are different than the passive verbs associated with 'luck' like hoping, wishing, praying, etc.

> Operating as a profitable non-profit foundation with no owners, where all profits are reinvested into the project

Neither myself nor Hannah own any shares, assets, domains, trademarks, or other companies related to Ghost. Everything is owned by the Foundation.

our intention is to expand the seats on Ghost's board of trustees beyond myself and Hannah.

I don’t see how this is fundamentally different from the WP Foundation approach. It still depends on people who despite claiming an intention haven’t given up control.

> I don't think the point of the article is that everything was intentional.

Author of the article here - that was exactly the point of the article.