|
Grex > Coop12 > #113: Cyberspace Communications finances for June 2002 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 271 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 25 of 271:
| 
Jul 3 02:54 UTC 2002 |
And Joe, I say "we" to point out that it's you who's insisting on being an
outsider - I would be happy to accept you as a member of the community,
since you obviously are one. (And no, that's not code for becoming a
member - all you have to do is say "we" instead of "you".) I know a lot
of other people feel the same way.
|
jared
|
|
response 26 of 271:
|
Jul 3 03:14 UTC 2002 |
I see no crisis for grex, and I see its long-term viability as quite high.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 27 of 271:
|
Jul 3 10:55 UTC 2002 |
Therefore you are donating lots of money? *grin*
I think Jan has an excellent set of arguements for those of us who can
afford to make a donation above a membership fee. Think of it as an
income-based sliding scale that you create for yourself.
Poverty = $60 a year
Just above poverty = $70 a year
Poor = $80 a year (notice this is still under $10 a month).
Working poor = $90 a year
Better than minimum wage job = $100 a year
Real job = $120 a year
Serious job = $150 a year
I feel flush = $200 a year
I'm rich = $250 a year
I'm rich enough to give Grex at least what I pay for cable = $420 a
year.
|
mdw
|
|
response 28 of 271:
|
Jul 3 13:24 UTC 2002 |
So, does $420 buy you 7 times more say than $60?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 29 of 271:
|
Jul 3 13:58 UTC 2002 |
From Grex?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 30 of 271:
|
Jul 3 14:10 UTC 2002 |
Sliding fee scale usually refers to getting a certain service (fixed level
of service) for a variable amount (sliding fee).
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 31 of 271:
|
Jul 3 14:24 UTC 2002 |
Okay. If those of us who make a good living suddenly started donating $200
a year to Grex, what precisely would Grex do with the money that would improve
the services it provides? Buy more spare obsolete Sun hardware?
|
danr
|
|
response 32 of 271:
|
Jul 3 17:07 UTC 2002 |
Why is jmsaul sounding like keesan all of a sudden? :)
Back in the old days, we had to continually beat on people to pay the
bills. It may be that we go back to that--or something like it. If NPR
can do it, we can certainly do it, too. When push comes to shove, a lot
of people will dig out their wallets when asked.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 33 of 271:
|
Jul 3 17:35 UTC 2002 |
Hey now. I'm not *advocating* that Grex keep buying obsolete hardware, I'm
just speculating that, given past performance, the only thing extra donations
would buy is more taxable spare parts piled up at the Pumpkin.
It's a serious question, though: if we all started donating money as suggested
above based on income, what would Grex do with all of that extra cash? I'd
really like to know. If the answer is "build bigger cash reserves," then
there's no way I'd bother, because your cash reserve is huge compared to your
expenses and I'd rather hang on to the money and bail you out when you need
it. If it's "buy more old Sun hardware," I'm also not excited about that,
because I'm in the camp that thinks you guys should move to a newer and faster
platform instead of locking yourselves further into old Sun stuff.
If there's actually something cool Grex could do with extra money, I'd like
to hear about it. Improving service, or keeping a troubled system afloat,
are the two reasons I'd actually be likely to donate. You aren't troubled,
so talk to me about service improvements. Make the case.
|
davel
|
|
response 34 of 271:
|
Jul 3 17:39 UTC 2002 |
What Dan said. I can remember quite a few board meetings where board members
(and others attending, sometimes) opened their wallets & handed over some
more. At that time it wasn't uncommon for people who'd been around a little
while (or, occasionally, quite a while), on hearing that Grex needed money,
to say that they would have contributed earlier if they'd known.
Dan was treasurer then, & I'm sure it felt to him like we were continually
beating on people to pay the bills; but even then fundraising was definitely
low-key.
That was also when Grex was entirely local, and there wasn't much of an
internet at all, which made a difference. I doubt that it means we won't
get a response if we have to ask a bit harder, though.
|
davel
|
|
response 35 of 271:
|
Jul 3 17:40 UTC 2002 |
#33 slipped in.
|
jep
|
|
response 36 of 271:
|
Jul 3 18:37 UTC 2002 |
Joe has a point. I saw things his way not so long ago. Grex has years
of operating cash, and no pressing need for money. Why contribute
now? Why contribute to Grex when there are other worthwhile
organizations which need the money, too?
Grex did a lot for me recently, which made me want to send money.
Others here are hardcore Grexers, doing what they can just to support
Grex because they believe in it as a worthy entity. But for those who
haven't seen the need to give Grex money, Joe's comments are worth
paying attention to.
Joe gives money to non-profits; he's given a ton to M-Net during
various crises. He's also seen, watched, and agonized over M-Net
withering from lack of financial support. (I assume I'm accurately
describing his feelings about it; I have gone through the same thing
myself and Joe and I are similar in some ways.)
What can Grex do to show people like Joe -- and me -- and other users
who don't give money right now to Grex -- that they ought to?
In order to pad Grex's reserves of cash? To what end? Grex doesn't
have any goals for which it needs more money. It has it's expenses
covered for *years*. Should the goal be to cover them for decades?
Because it's just inherently right? Grex welcomes all, whether they
pay or not. No one *owes* anything to Grex.
If there was some purpose to which the money would be spent, then I
think a lot of people would contribute. If there was a need -- we
can't pay the bills, etc. -- there'd be money coming in. But donating
ina case where there's no need amounts to having the money stored in
Grex's bank account rather than your own. Why do that?
I'm certainly not trying to discourage anyone from contributing to
Grex. I'm trying to describe what Grex is up against in asking for
more voluntary contributions from people.
|
jp2
|
|
response 37 of 271:
|
Jul 3 19:00 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 271:
|
Jul 3 19:11 UTC 2002 |
If we had adequate money lying around here's what I would vote to do with
it, given the option:
Pay a staffer or staffers for a certain amount of time dedicated to
development of the next Grex.
If we could pay for what we now receive as a donation of time and labor
(and skill), then we could compress the time schedule for the advancement
of Grex to the next level, which would improve both speed and service.
If we had sufficient resources to offer a current volunteer staffer
enough to make Grex a priority without having to compromise their need to
earn a living (assuming staffers with the necessary skills would have the
time available), what better use could we put the money to?
|
cross
|
|
response 39 of 271:
|
Jul 3 19:57 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 40 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:03 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 41 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:42 UTC 2002 |
Re #36: Good assessment, John.
Re #37: Enough to live off the interest? I can see where you're coming
from, but that would require about $80K in the bank at current
expense levels assuming that Grex would put its money into
something that paid decent interest and monitor its investments.
I don't think that's feasible.
Re #38: If you didn't use obscure and obsolete hardware, you'd probably
have a larger volunteer pool... but the more important question
is "what would the next Grex be, and how would it provide better
services than the current one?" What are you envisioning?
Re #39: Grex's monthly cost seems excessive to me, too.
|
cross
|
|
response 42 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:43 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:46 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 44 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:50 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 45 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:50 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 46 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:50 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 47 of 271:
|
Jul 3 20:59 UTC 2002 |
Re #42: Hmm. Wonder what would happen if there were a membership vote on
co-location? (I'm not planning to start one; I've been down that
road before.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 48 of 271:
|
Jul 3 21:21 UTC 2002 |
Re #39 and 42: I didn't use the word "should" in #24. What I said was, the
bills don't pay themselves, and if you're not helping pay for Grex, then
someone else is paying your share. I guess you can quibble that implying
everyone has a share is a moral imperative, but actually I think what I said
is objectively true.
Absolutely, the staff is accountable to the membership. If the membership
votes to colocate somewhere, or otherwise change our expenses, then the Grex
board and staff are obliged to do what they say. THat's the way the system
works.
|
cross
|
|
response 49 of 271:
|
Jul 3 21:33 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|