It's always a pity when protectionism or personality conflicts get in the way of carrying out good ideas.

And I had some run-in with a mod who banned me for an unspecified offense with two options: admit guilt and beg for reinstatement or deny my crime and be banned. The offense remains a mystery years later proving that those who have power will use it.

These groups are only as good as the members of the mods if they control it (the freecycle charter forbade moderation, preferring to let people manage their own relationships.). But the idea is wonderful: we got rid of so much stuff that we know is being used w/o the hassle of selling it.

But I can see how the moderation privileges could be abused....and if people were skimming from the list before hand, that's kinda shady.

It stinks that there's a disconnect between the individuals-as-group, the groups-as-group, the groups-as-organization, and the organization-as-organization. Fruit punch czar indeed.

However, other than that, they're a good group. Well-moderated. I've had great experiences giving stuff away there -- one woman looked like she was going to cry or kiss me when I met up with her to hand off an old cell phone of mine barely worth $5, because it was the only means she had of speaking with her parents. Another woman, when I gave away a set of pillows and the denim I'd intended to cover them with for years, said "You really want to give this away? This is amazing, I'm recovering a couch in denim and this is completely perfect." Makes you feel good.

I can understand being wary of extending it to lending things, or trading things. But I agree that should be the decision of the local group. Centralized control just seems contrary to the whole ethos of Freecycle.

Erik @6, I've noticed the same Rule of Condo Naming - Whispering Pines, when the trees were clearcut; The Corners at Crystal Lakes (I actually lived there) built over the old spring-fed swimming holes; und so depressingly weiter. Most peculiar.

I gave away a LOT of stuff when I moved, and my current (gorgeous! rolltop oak!) computer desk and my super-fancy printer are both Freecycle scores.

Caroline @11:
It's extremely annoying that my local Freecycle group tells people not to speak about "Freecycling" things (presumably because it would violate the trademark). Really? *Really?*

Really really. TFN are very explicit about that here:

-o0o-

...the term "Freecycle" must be used as an adjective, never as a noun or verb. For example:

Do not say "I'm a freecycler."
Do say "I'm a Freecycle member."

Do not say "Keep on freecyclin!"
Do say "Keep on recyclin', my Freecycle friends!"

Do not say "Freecycling group."
Do say "Freecycle group"

Do not say "Please Freecycle."
Do say "Please join a Freecycle group."

Do not say "There are 10 freecycles in this state."
Do say "There are 10 Freecycle groups in this state."

Do not say "freecycle's membership."
Do say "The Freecycle Network's membership."

(Note: new groups may use the word Freecycle in their group name/title, but should not be approved with any variations of the word Freecycle in their name, title or description, like freecycler, freecycling, freecycles.)

- o0o -

It's not entirely clear what the trademark status is; TFN claims it is trademarked, but a number of other people claim otherwise, and there is, or has been, a case somewhere in the courts about it. (Amicus briefs by the EFF and a buncha people including Lawrence Lessig and Jimmy Wales, both pdfs) I'm unclear on the status of the matter at the moment.

Just call me Dick.

(I really don't approve of centralizing control freakery.)

While the English Freecycle group was making all the noise, it looks like Scotland quietly flitted to Freegle, lock, stock and OFFERED: barrel.

Embra has certainly joined that code fork.

"The term "Freecycle" in text must always be capitalized to set it off from the surrounding text. Example:
Freecycle groups are great!"

If I was going to get that motherlovingly anal, I'd at least try to come up with an example with "Freecycle" somewhere other than the first word of the sentence, eg "I think Freecycle moderators
sound like they've achieved a remarkable synthesis of authoritarianism and profound shiftiness."

My impression is that TFN has jumped through whatever hoops are necessary to trademark "Freecycle", though the defendants are also arguing that the word "freecycle" is generic and thus shouldn't be available for trademark.

Laws may have changed since then, and the definition of "in common usage" may be debatable.
~ AIANAL.

In Ottawa, we also have a Habitat for Humanity Re-Store for building supplies. It's conveniently close to my office, takes lots of stuff, and sells for very low prices.

That list looks an awful lot like the ones from large corporations telling their employees (and other people, although they never listen) how to properly use their trademark. This makes it easier to defend as a trademark, despite never taking natural English usage into account, so I wouldn't judge them too harshly on that account. If they're just starting to be obnoxious about it now, though, that's different.

According to the US Patent and Trademark office, a trademark application was filed in 2004 and it was "published for opposition" in 2006. According to the UK's Intellectual Property Office, the application was filed in 2005, referencing the 2004 application in the US, and it was registered in 2006.

I am not an expert in any way, shape, or form, but, judging by the USPTO's FAQ, registration just makes it easier to use the courts, it's not necessary for something to be a trademark. I don't know how it works in the UK.

Erik @6, I've noticed the same Rule of Condo Naming - Whispering Pines, when the trees were clearcut; The Corners at Crystal Lakes (I actually lived there) built over the old spring-fed swimming holes; und so depressingly weiter. Most peculiar.

I live in an area called Hawthorn Farms. Guess what it used to be. The Max line runs through there and in one spot, while riding the train, you can see an old derelict farmhouse. Past another stop is a narrow road where an old general store sits. It's like a ghost of the past slipping into the present.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine ad revenue making up for operating expenses. I vaguely suspect it might be a misguided "It's Web 2.0! Of course it can be monetized! ...somehow! ...eventually!" sort of thing on the financial end, with fruit-punch-bowl-czarism providing psychological motivation.

Our expenses of about $130,000 are mainly in the paying of four individuals and the maintenance of our current website and design of the new community. These individuals include the executive director, two contractors responsible for the current web community and one contractor for the new website design project. We have several servers to this end, coding expense and related site-design expenses. We also are incurring substantial legal expense, primarily in defending our trademark.

Their Form 990 for 2008 breaks this out in more detail. Some interesting bits:

Paying of four individuals:
The main individual whose pay is described in the Form 990 is Deron Beal (the executive director). According to page 2 of the form, he received $42,591 in compensation and a further $10,171 in benefit payments.

Very little is shown of others' pay, but since page 2 reveals that the total compensation was $51,681, that's only $9,090 left for others as direct compensation.

Let's be clear. There's nothing wrong with being paid for one's work. I suspect that running TFN is a full-time job and then some.

The concern is, when one person is paid while others volunteer, whether the paid person's priorities undergo a subtle shift, so that he prefers a structure that allows him to keep getting paid to one that is chancier but more in keeping with the ad hoc nature of the system.

maintenance of the website and design of the new community
I presume that comes out on page 19, where costs of $6,640 for computer services and $5,855 for outside computer expenses are listed.

The whole set of forms is useful reading if you want to get a scale of things. Even with $50,000 in government grants, $69k in service revenue and $96 grand in public donations, TFN is not an enormous money pot.

(I note that they are building up a substantial capital reserve; they pretty much doubled their assets in 2008 to $190 grand. But both that and the defensible trademark could well be simply planning for long-term survival.)

(Yes, that last bit was British. So?)

(Internet ad revenue amounts to $9,275; legal fees are $11,394.)

Does that have an actual name (like "Overton Window" or "Whoozit's Law")?

The answer is very simple: any group who gets caught doing something like that gets kicked out of Freecycle and loses their support network. TFN has some very cult-like features, and "shunning" of group owners/moderators who show disillusionment with Freecycle is one of them.
Once a group has been removed/kicked out of Freecycle, they are no longer allowed to use the name Freecycle on their group or in their web address. So time is of the essence, because the trademark agent comes after the group owner. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult (or impossible) to democratically ask the members of a group to vote on the issue.

Besides, the group owners are allowed, under Yahoo!s terms of service, to rename their groups. Members who have joined a Yahoo group, rather than Freecycle's own platform MyFreecycle, are members of the Yahoo group - not of Freecycle. If people have joined a group hosted on the MyFreecycle platform, then they have indeed joined Freecycle. If they've joined a Freecycle group hosted on Yahoo!, then they've joined a Yahoo! group (which can be renamed at the owner's discretion).

Hope this clears up some of the confusion :-)

I've heard it called The Iron Law of Institutions. I think that post is where it comes from, but who knows, really.

Mary Aileen @ 44: "If you wind up with a headache after all that, I'll give you some aspirin."

If they need it right away will you fed-ex it?

Or maybe it will be like kleenex.

That one stopped our car from sliding down the yard into the street when my toddler-sister inadvertently bumped the gear level out of park one day.

I understand the reasoning, but unconsented moderator behavior runs through this entire story like secrecy through a dysfunctional family. I mean this in all seriousness. Consider:

* From what I read, TFN ran a Freecycle moderators' forum, and comments on that were moderated (before publishing? Accounts are not clear). People tell of asking awkward questions or complaining and then finding their comments suppressed and themselves banned.

* There are allegations that moves to My Freecycle were said to be reversible until the moderator actually moved; then they proved to be final. I've also read allegations that such moves have been done without the consent of the Yahoo! group owner.

* The story about the ErsatzFriend co-moderator role (I linked to it in the main article), which was claimed to allow TFN to take over Freecycle groups if a rebellious list owner did not agree to step down.

* The sort of thing that Paul @7 mentions, when moderation of offers leads to "dibs".

* And yes, the groups who moved to Freegle. I acknowledge that this may have been a necessary evil, but that doesn't make it good.

The underlying theme to this problem is the question of who owns the community?

TFN clearly wants to. In addition to the more overt moves, note the fact that the form for people who want to start a Freecycle group talks of "applying" for one. TFN is clearly placing itself in the position of grantor, as though it's a franchise.

I think the UK mods who moved their communities away are closer to the truth of the matter, and that's why I'm more on their side. They did not want group ownership (in the real sense, not the Yahoo! internal terminology) to rest with the layer above them.

But that begs the next question. Do those mods think that they own the group? Do they act like they do? Or do they think that the list members own it? I don't know of a litmus test for that, but I see on the Freegle moderator resources page that there are fora (eg Freegle Structure) for discussing that.

Unfortunately, those fora are for moderators only.

See a problem?

I've seen this referred to as Pournelle's Iron Law. (I have no idea what the precedence is on this, and it has probably been noted many times.) From Jerry Pournelle's weblog:

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

Related ideas are Teresa's Punchbowl Czar, and the Peter Principle.

[*] Why go after union reps when there's non-teaching management, for example? Grinding political axes[**] in public is seldom pretty ...

[**] Yes, yes, bad pun. So bite me.

Now, the US healthcare insurance bureaucracy would be a classic example of the iron law in progress. Especially as there's enough money sloshing around the host organism to keep them well-fed.

He's a Republican?

Here I sit in Amsterdam and watch world tensions grow
Here I sit in Amsterdam and see a tale of woe
Here I sit in Amsterdam as good ideas go lame
And politics gone sweet to sour in transatlantic game.

The ways that grew from high ideals
And implemented well,
And spread across a continent
And oceans in their swell--
But ways that work across the sea
When spread to other lands,
Meet values, culture, local trends,
And conflict starts and stands.

Whose ways are the better ones
And bitter strife ensues,
And legal fights and broken bonds
Opposing now the views,
The good ideas and ideals rip'd
To shred and lost good will,
And those who try to stay the course,
Whose efforts are there still.

The Pournelle quote sounds like the classic "How can I have been wrong about someone I knew?!" that is almost de rigueur for articles about "respectable" people being arrested. I'm not sure why the newspapers always include those quotes. The shocked parent, spouse, or child, okay--the random neighbor, well, who is well known to all their neighbors?

It seems especially odd in this case, given that it's almost definitional of actual and would-be spies that their neighbors don't know they're spies. It's not like selling drugs or running numbers, where it can be advantageous to have one's neighbors aware of the business. It's not like a past conviction for car theft, because the cars parked on the street won't know about your record. Being known--or thought--to be a spy makes espionage, and especially that sort of espionage for profit, much more difficult if not impossible.

That's a good point. The Iron Law applied to a union suggests that a union will, over time, transition from an organization focused on protecting the interests of its members to an organization focused on protecting its own continued position and importance. That seems plausible, but I don't have much experience with unions, so I have no idea how accurate it is.

A union representing the interests of its members in a way that has bad social effects is a problem, but it's not the Iron Law. (Obvious examples of this are things like the prison guard's union campaigning for three-strikes laws, or the policemens' union fighting to keep a corrupt or brutal cop from losing his job.)

It certainly seems to be true of most large organizations to some extent. It may even be necessary to some extent--if your federal agency is focused entirely on doing its job, and all the other agencies are focused mainly on getting a bigger budget and more responsibilities, your agency is liable to shrink in power and importance.