make Gratipay application-only

[chadwhitacre]

This is an alternative to #187:

Now that we're clear that Gratipay is in fact a community (and not just a common carrier payments platform), we need to wrestle with how to ensure that users align with our mission and values. It's non-ideal to leave this vague and undefined, because that breeds fear: are they going to kick me off next? Let's find a way to be up-front so that Gratipay users can feel confident that they belong on Gratipay.

The proposal here is that anyone joining Gratipay as a receiver would have to go through an application and vetting process. The process would include a review for brand alignment, and would be conducted in a public GitHub ticket.

How would we transition from our current open enrollment system? I'm thinking something like this: all current receivers have a year to apply. Any receivers that haven't applied and been accepted within a year are converted to non-receivers.

[chadwhitacre]

This is something I hope to look at after (and if) we land gratipay/gratipay.com#67.

[chadwhitacre]

From @techtonik at e12253c#commitcomment-11011600:

Conflict, divisiveness means we have the right to ban any user who do not agree with us. But then, who are we? @Changaco did not agree with you and left. You will also need to ban me, because my persona is highly conflicting in some Internet circles.

I don't see censorship can support openness. It looks like it all started from SJW vs 8chan case, which is probably a result of gamergate, which is probably a result of some political technology testing. And as a result at least one core developer of GP is left and me is considering if I want to support this.

You know, I live in a very dark world, the world that is much closer to Fredrick Brennan than to those people who can earn $3000 a month without a sad feeling.

To resolve this gracefully, the best way is to conduct a thorough case study on this matter, keeping neutrality in the process and pause, not ban, accounts under investigation. From the business side of view, SJW and infinitechan are stakeholders. If government (who need to regulate the stuff) doesn't tell us who is guilty, and both parties provide a revenue, we need to choose one who is more profitable if there is no other choice. Let SJW side proof that infinitechan is illegal and escalate the conflict to the level where we can ban infinitechan without sacrificing our reputation and open culture.

I'd also say that this opens a door for more attacks on GP developers. Many people have their own biases and points of view. It is easy to identify them and attack. I think that GP should protect its developers, because it may happen that all of this is just a competitor's trick.

[chadwhitacre]

Actually, let's stick with #187 for this. Sorry for the noise.