response 50 of 115:

Apr 6 03:51 UTC 1997

More than one account with member priviledges sounds like a bad idea to me.
Let's drop it before this becomes another m-net discussion.

response 52 of 115:

Apr 6 13:22 UTC 1997

I don't think our tightest resource right now is money, it is
staff time.  We have a new fairly expensive computer and a number
of worthy projects waiting in the wings but our volunteers are
few and over-extended already.  

At present I can't see instituting any policy changes with the sole
intention of soliciting revenue unless we know there is available
staff to deal with any increase in administrative load.

response 54 of 115:

Apr 7 19:08 UTC 1997

        Sure glad to see that this "anonymous" member thang is NOT
        going over.. It was looking like a sure-fired way of 
        discomboomulating the framistat!

response 56 of 115:

Apr 7 19:47 UTC 1997

actually, the structure of #34 is commonplace in this society, to wit:
  
        parent buys kid a car and also pays for the insurance.
        kid is cool, no problems.
        kid blows it and both have problems to deal with.
        title & insurance being in payrent's name creates liablility
            for payrent, some liability for kid, who is identifiable
            to the payrent and perhaps others.
  
no problem with grex doing that for pseudo-payrents who donate for 2 accounts.
  

response 58 of 115:

Apr 8 22:55 UTC 1997

Um... tsty, car insurance for teens doesn't work that way (unless
the people in your situation are breaking laws). A kid who is
being purchased insurance by the parent goes on a list of insured people in
the household, and the parents rates are upped for every liscenced
teen in the house *we have 2 who are considered "in the house"*
when the kid totals the family car, the insurance covers it the same
as it would have for the asult. The adult pays for it but
identifies the child, or it is illegal. I shouldn't say illegal. The kid
is not really insured. IF people here donate money for
other's memberships and the other people (or donators, in some cases)
send in that persons valid id, I don't think anyone has a problem.
the account belongs to the donee (is that a word?) courtesy
of the donator (like mine). I don
t think w should have these psuedo members who are unidentified but have the
priveldges of a member.... BUT then again, part of me thinks
that somebody should be able to use the internet with their second account
but not vote...

response 60 of 115:

Apr 9 00:57 UTC 1997

re #59, I think that's exactly what we were discussing at the board meeting.

response 62 of 115:

Apr 9 07:00 UTC 1997

Now you're talking semantics again, Rane.  Whether we call it multiple
memberships or not doesn't make any difference.  The proposal is simply that
one person may have internet access from multiple accounts, if he pays for it,
but may have no more than one vote.  That's what it say in #0, isn't it?

And I've answered it a couple of times now, but the reason I think someone
would want to do that is because they want to support Grex, and get as many 
perks as they can for it.  I think that's a reasonable attitude, since after
all that's what perks are for, to make people feel that they're are getting
something concrete for their contribution.

response 64 of 115:

Apr 9 18:48 UTC 1997

People should not look upon their donation as a way to get "perks". To do
so badly distorts, if not destroys, the concept of a charitable non-profit.
If Grex becomes a 501(c)3 organization (as stated to be its objective, in
its Articles), then "perks" would not be tax deductible, although dues
would be. 

You have not answered my question, Mark. This was, does this person want
*multiple memberships* or *multiple internet accesses*? The former is
clearly illegal. The latter is selling services, which Grex is not prepared
to do without collecting taxes, and jumping through all the other hoops of
going into money-making business (which a non-profit can do, up to a point,
but is a serious step).

response 66 of 115:

Apr 9 19:50 UTC 1997

Maybe he is only proposing to allow members to have multiple login IDs with
telnet access.  It would seem reasonable to say that members may avail
themeselves of the privilege of using more than one login ID on the Internet.
No one is proposing selling access to non-members as far as I can see.  There
is no reason that these extra login IDs shouldn't contribute to the cost of
providing the service.  

response 68 of 115:

Apr 10 06:07 UTC 1997

The difference is, is that we are not selling services to members. The
*only* reason for permitting telnet access only to members is to control
the use of the resource. Members are selected as the subgroup to be
permitted to do this for the lack of any other well defined, small, 
identifiable, group. The system would not function (except without telnet
access for anyone) without this restriction. 

What we call a member *must* be the same as what state laws requires
it to be.

Large charitable corporations - I presume you mean 501(c)3 ones - are
not very free to give out "perks". I'm not going to look up the IRS
rules right now, but they are very restrictive. A newsletter is OK - if
it is not sold separately. Not much else. What examples do you have in
mind? If any gift is received in exchange for a donation (even though the
donation greatly exceeds the value of the gift), the organization must specify
the value of the gift and that its value must be subtracted from the
tax deductibility of the gift. Most such gifts ("perks") really have little
intrinsic value but rather some value as keepsakes or momentos.

What is the value of internet access? I have argued that it is the actual
cost for Grex to provide it, which is not very much (others have argued
that it is what it costs to buy it from a commercial establishment).
If we can take it to be the former, then Grex could give the *gift*
(or, "premium") of a second account with telnet access in exchange for
$60 (per year) to an existing member. This would be a form of fundraising
from those already contributing. It might be better to set the cost at
$100, since it is an *unusual* gifit. Is this what you are driving at?

I would argue against doing this as it offers this premium only to members.
Our fund raising targets should really be the 14,000 *non-members*, rather
than the 100 members, who are already doing their part. 

response 70 of 115:

Apr 11 04:01 UTC 1997

Sorry, 20 yrs of retail experience speaking here. Services are taxable
under michigan law. The tax is added after the labor charge, shipping
fees, etc. These represent the "cost of doing business" which are charged
to the customer. I don't like the idea of grexers being treated like
customers. We are a wierd, funny, loosly organized club, and I'd rather be
called a member. The only reason I can think of that a person with
muti-logins would want internet access for all their accounts would be
that they were too lazy to re-log in on the internet abled account.

response 72 of 115:

Apr 11 04:46 UTC 1997

rcurl, the specific (in my case) reason for having different accounts
is/was to keep stuff separate - including, and perhaps especially, keeping
the mindset focused on the specific functions for which i/you/we/they
generated the separate account.
  
it's not too dissimilar from having separate conferences rather than
having agora+coop+sex+garage+jellyware and a gazillion items
jumbled into a monstrosity. 

response 74 of 115:

Apr 11 06:51 UTC 1997

Auto insurance is the responsibility of the car's owner.  If the parents
own the car, the parents pay for the insurance.  If the kid owns the
car, the kid pays the insurance.  As it happens, the latter is far more
expensive than the former, so quite rare.

Auto insurance is not identification, however, the driver's license is.
Indeed, the license is issued to the kid, exactly as a license would be
issued to an adult.  Also, if the kid breaks a traffic law, the points
go on the kid's license, not the parents.

So, in fact, this example makes a terrible argument for the case of
having proxy identification for internet access purposes.

If you want to have even more fun; in DC, when a car is found in
violation of a parking ordinance, it's the car's fault, and not the
driver's.  This legal fiction exists because of diplomatic immunity.
For years, diplomats would park their car anywhere; on sidewalks, in
front of hydrants, blocking alleys, etc., but because they were immune
to prosecution, nothing could be done about it.  The car, on the other
hand, has no such immunity.