fundamentally, if you do not already have a system in place for differentiating volunteer work from paid work, it takes a lot of time, discussion, and energy to create a good one, all of which is a huge direction change and takes focus away from things that are already delayed.
Figuring out how to vet volunteers, figuring out a way to establish them in a pre-existing work ecosystem while still keeping private things private, figuring out how to manage/direct/correct people who are technically accountable to nobody (and these are just the tip of the iceberg)…these aren't easy things or fast fixes.
I know that peoples' hearts are in the right place and I understand why, I like it here too and I don't want it to go away. But "why don't they just temporarily [idea that upends their whole structure, involves a ton of extra work, and exposes them to a mountain of risk]" oversimplifies the matter.
"Having staff responsibilities and expectations but no compensation" is not volunteer work in the same way that "creating content you want to make that encourages people to use a site" is volunteer work, though both can have a lot of impact. Not to mention, someone they relied on but isn't accountable to them has already disappeared (hope they're ok), I can see why they wouldn't be keen to recreate that dynamic either.
I have worked both sides of this issue (as the paid staff and as a volunteer), and while in most cases it turned out fine in the end, it took a lot of structure-building to get there without being exploitative, and a lot of times, people walked (which is their right!) before it got there.
Even if they had some kind of coding open "bounty" board (which is the least fucked up way I can think of for implementing it so far), a paid person will still have to 1) implement it in the first place and 2) go through everything that's submitted because at the end of the day, nobody will forgive staff if they go live with something a volunteer did and it was flawed. The nonprofit option mentioned would mean there would be more volunteers and better ways to manage them, but having done that too, I can co-sign the assertion that setting up a nonprofit is not a trivial task.
Plus, things happen and people can't always contribute to the level that's needed when it's needed, that's understandable. But when it's a volunteer working on something essential, how do you handle that without worrying that someone is going to hear one (1) suggest for an edit or gentle reminder of a deadline and immediately start accusing you of exploiting them because they're "doing you a favor"?
Sure, perhaps I'm underestimating the internet and its potential for disproportionate blowback (I'm not and you know it). But the worst-case scenario in that case risks them losing even more of the cohost plus subscribers they already have, putting them even more in the hole. I can't blame them for being wary of the idea.
Again, I'm not attacking anyone here, just providing a perspective on the "but why not volunteers" posts I've seen floating around. Maybe I've misunderstood the type of volunteer work people are offering to do, but many of them have not included much detail other than their other experience volunteering. I've also noticed that of those, much of the experience is in all-volunteer structures or systems with established ways of managing the divide.
Honestly, if staff does go for it and it works out, I won't complain, I'll be glad. But that doesn't mean it won't have been a gamble, just that the gamble would have paid off in that case.
In the meantime, it's probably better to support them through the methods that already exist, until/unless they ask otherwise. (I know most people are already doing this!)