dev.to is a unique and interesting service -- a company built in the open on open source technology, and has grown a large community based largely on that open-source culture.
A discussion I'd like to see from the dev.to founders is how they plan to evolve what is primarily an open-source community into a software company that operates that community. This seems like an important discussion to have, especially for an open company, as the concerns/goals/responsibilities of the dev.to community are different than those of the dev.to software company (the company that will sell software to other companies).
A few questions that come to mind:
* To what extent is the dev.to community values/rules/etc are codified somewhere?
* What happens in the event of an acquisition, or if a new leadership/management team is brought in?
* To what extent are the dev.to community values the values of the company, vs the values of the current company leadership? (this point is sticky, as all companies are a reflection of the people who operate it, yet, "company culture" is a very much a thing)
I'm optimistic and excited to see how dev.to navigates these challenges. It's a unique opportunity to experiment with new models not yet seen in venture-backed companies or commercial enterprises in general.
I don't want to be negative and please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they only open the platform well after they grew to a substantial size?
I don't know exact dates but I vaguely remember maybe reading a post there where the main guy said the platform wasn't open until well down the line.
It doesn't really matter in the end, this is more of a question on the accuracy of openness.
You can follow me at https://dev.to/ben to get notice when I get a chance to flesh some of this out publicly.
just to name a few
The recent implosion of Medium due to user-unfriendly decisions likely helped Dev out, so there's a bit of good luck there too.
But, I'm not sure what implosion on Medium you're talking about. That sounds like the talking points that two publications were using as they left medium (HN and FCC). But there was a shady backstory there and a lot of posturing to set themselves up to be independent.
But those publications leaving just ended up leaving a temporary gap that other publications quickly filled. Towards Data Science is now doing well north of 10 million page views a month. That's twice the size of Dev.to.
And I helped launch a new publication in May, Better Programming, that just crossed 4 million views per month.
I think when people here say that Medium decisions are user unfriendly that they are only seeing half of the picture. The paywall in particular is very author friendly. Now Medium brings authors both money and readers and you barely have to work for it. That's a good deal and creates incentives for a lot more and better writing. That end result is user friendly.
However, "the paywall in particular is very author friendly" is incorrect. If you want to monetize, sure, but the majority of people I know went to post on Medium in the first place did it to share personal knowledge with an easy-to-use UI/UX and get feedback, not to generate money.
Their success ultimately will hinge on:
1. Monetization (obviously)
2. Their ability to scale (I hope to help with this at some point)
3. Their ability to maintain the current culture.
If they're able to scale out their infrastructure as people come in, find ways to make money without annoying people, and maintain the culture they have right now, the sky's the limit.
I don't know a lot about the leadership other than what I've seen on the site and following them on Twitter, but they seem very capable of doing it. I have high hopes for them.
To me, culture is the biggest challenge.
There are communities on the internet that I refuse to do more than lurk in. I don't join communities to have flame wars (do they still call them that?), pissing contests, or play gatekeeper to new folks. But I see it all over, and it drives people like me out.
I just want to talk tech, teach what I know and learn from what others know. I'm the kind of user you want on your platform. I won't drive people away or cause you legal problems. I'll help people and bring in more. But I will absolutely BAIL when it starts getting political, or toxic folks are allowed to sling crap everywhere. There are a lot of people just me that will simply walk away. No big farewell post or calling people on social media. Folks like me just walk away.
So running a community you have to make choices as to what you'll tolerate and stick to it, it's a thankless and stressful job and you don't really have much control. I believe that's more challenging than things like establishing a revenue model or scaling. I just hope they can maintain what they currently have now. HN has done a good job over the years keeping their stuff moderated, so it can be done.
Oh, and hopefully they don't do too much of this voting/karma crap like Reddit. Invisible internet points are what's destroyed their culture if you ask me.
(and SPA things like breaking the browser back button, although I don't think that it's intentional)
Luckily our longterm plans revolve around helping other people use our software under _their_ name.
We've been mostly focused on phase 1 which is our own use of the software, but have a roadmap to get more folks on the underlying platform in 2020.
The Oracle structure of co-CEOs leaves a company without any chance of instability, and works well for what it is.
And then i tought. Why are all comments about the platform. I really read "Docker ... Inc. raised money". But clearly investors are stupid. dev.... m(