Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.

This is definitely the most reasonable approach.

I’ll sometimes experience this, but it’s inconsistent. Other times I’ll be able to scroll as normal.

I agree that we shouldn’t assume corruption if TheDude starts receiving any funds, but I think it would be beneficial to have clear expectations about how donations are being used. If it’s clear that excess funds go straight into TheDude’s pockets, great. Let anyone who wants to donate go for it. But I wouldn’t want anyone to donate thinking that they’re supporting server costs when they’re actually just tipping someone. Whichever way it goes, it just needs to be clear.

I think the biggest reason in favour of doing so would be that this would provide oversight and accountability for donations. I for one don’t feel entirely comfortable donating when I don’t know how the funds will be used.

Another potential reason would be to have multiple levels of democratized power. For instance, guests of the Agora might have no decision-making power, users some decision-making power, and members (having paid a one-time membership fee) some more decision-making power. Of course, that kind of structure assumes a decently large scale of organization.

If it comes to incorporating as a not-for-profit, I’ve got some experience with not-for-profits, and would be open to helping incorporate.