response 63 of 127:

Jul 24 03:28 UTC 1998

I'd have to say that Grex is actually putting money into Aaron's pocket. 
  We are providing all these services that he would otherwise be taxed 
for.  The Govt certainly can't provide them without taxes.  Maybe since 
we are giving (a small) amount of money to Aaron every year he should 
instead allow us to dictate to him what are acceptable lifestyles.

Now if the Govt. were writing us a check for $12,000 it would be harder 
to make this argument, but since we have converted from paying no taxes 
on our pitiful income to paying no taxes, and converted from filtering 
money through an inefficient Govt. to sending it directly to us where we 
are frankly astoundingly efficient with it I don't see how we could make 
any other argument than above.

response 65 of 127:

Jul 24 15:45 UTC 1998

Re resp:61: (1) I've seen no reason to believe that this status isn't
retroactive. (2) Non-retroactive status would be granted as of the date
the IRS received our application.  I do have record of that date
someplace, but the fact that they didn't mention it in their
determination letter is another reason to believe it is retroactive. 
Thus, in either case, the person who made the $600 donation is in the
right time period to make it tax-deductable.  The question remaining is
whether Grex memberships are fully tax deductable.  My opinion that they
are, but we still need to research this further.

response 67 of 127:

Jul 25 05:57 UTC 1998

I *do* understand your perspective, aaron, I just don't happen to
agree with it.  Or didn't *you* bother to consider that possibility?

response 69 of 127:

Jul 25 20:57 UTC 1998

There are several ways to read the tax code:
 (1) what the framers of the tax code had in mind when they wrote the
law
 (2) how the IRS (or other tax collection agency) interprets it
 (3) how the court interprets it
 (4) how an accountant might interpret it for a client
 (5) what "joe smith" in the streets thinks it *ought* to mean In most
of these possible interpretations, it is senseless to try to apply any
sort of overall logic to it.  That is because for each of these views,
there is not one coherent voice.  Many people framed the tax laws, and
they had many different and often conflicting views.  501c3 status is
not an exception to this.  To say 501c3 status "means" we're providing
service the gov't would otherwise have to provide, or that 501c3 status
is "for" charities, is complete nonsense -- that's trying to say 501c3
"means" and only one thing, and it's really just a special case of (5)
[man in the street].  Unfortunately case (5) means very little where it
counts--case (2) [irs] and case (3) [courts] are what matters to grex,
and the viewpoint we here on grex should really be following is case (4)
[accountant].  That is to say, one of grex's jobs is to figure out how
to efficiently provide as much service as possible, and 501c3 is merely
a tool the gov't provides us that should make us just a little more
efficient.  That's all 501c3 is, a tool, - it doesn't *mean* anything,
any more than your social card *means* anything, or your *1993 tax
income return *means* anything.  It's just random data in an extremely
complex game where people shuffle little bits of paper on desks, and it
means we can shuffle paper just a *bit* differently, and maybe, get a
slightly better deal on computer hardware.

response 71 of 127:

Jul 25 22:34 UTC 1998

re #67: Maybe instead of being obstreperous, you will articulate your
        position?

re #68: I guess I would have to take your word for that.

re #69: Now that we recognize that 501(C)(3) is a tool, perhaps we can
        decide if it is best to get the most positive use of the tool, to
        use it on rare occasions while leaving it in the garage most of
        the time, or to leave it out on the lawn to rust.

re #70: Does the concept of "natural growth" seem alien to you? Nothing
        has to be forced. Surely there are members of the Grex board who
        have ideas of good things Grex could do, which will have a much
        greater chance of success with its exempt status.

        Am I wrong about that? Has there been a complete dearth of such
        ideas among board members?

response 73 of 127:

Jul 25 22:56 UTC 1998

It's not heated on my end. If it's heated on somebody else's end, they
should consider that their hostility, not my comments, is at the root of
that heat.

response 75 of 127:

Jul 26 15:20 UTC 1998

I don't know that the password file is the best place to look for evidence
of growth, nor that even if it were the place to look for growth in size,
that it would be the best place to look for the type of growth of which I
am speaking. Is the growth due to international users who like free email
and party, for example?

response 77 of 127:

Jul 26 16:40 UTC 1998

Here's the thing, though, Misti -- Abornet has proved quite decisively that
just having 501(C)(3) status will *not* inspire people to donate. Recall\
that most people do not itemize, and most do not give enough to take any real
advantage of the charitable contribution deduction.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch -- and try to think of ways to
incubate the eggs.

response 79 of 127:

Jul 26 17:51 UTC 1998

        A measurement of growth for me would be the number of "voices"
in this agora.cf vs. a year ago or two years ago.  A voice would be
a userid entering or responding to item(s).  Exclude very low volume
users--those that enter item in error, or respond only to the welcome
item to not be heard again.
        Has anyone made this measurement?  Perhaps this methodology and
discusion seserves a new item?

response 81 of 127:

Jul 26 19:12 UTC 1998

I don't think new donations are something to count on, which is why I
emphasized the tax savings.  It probably will result in the occasional
corporate donation of hardware, etc. and I think that alone is sufficient.

Of course, we do have to work on finding ways of getting new memebers and
maintaining more existing members --  but I consider that to be a different
issue, since - as Aaron has pointed out - most people won't be influenced all
that much.

As Rane says, our best best in getting new members is to look for people who
are willing to donate because of what Grex is and what it does.  Those people
are out there, I'm sure.  We have to find them and make it as attractive as
possible for them to join in supporting the system.

After listening to Dan R. at the last board meeting, I think it may be time
to take a look at credit card options again.  It may still be too expensive,
but it could add enough convemience for our members that I think it's worth
checking every so often anyway.

I'm wary about looking for grants.  I'd be concerend about rwo things:

1) any restrictions the grant-givers might want to place on Grex

and 

2) letting folks get the perception that Grex doesn't need grass-roots support
because it's government/grant funded.  Most of what makes Grex special is its
grassroots nature.  That doesn't rule out specific grant moneys for specific
expansions -- but I think it would fundamentally change the nature of our
system to depend on grants for support of our daily needs.

response 83 of 127:

Jul 26 21:03 UTC 1998

There is no danger of us *not* using the 501c3 status.  We'll soon be
making use of one minor, but pleasant surprise -- it seems 501c3 status
means we don't need to pay state and local taxes on our phone lines
anymore.

response 85 of 127:

Jul 26 22:10 UTC 1998

Re #82,83:  I share Misti's 2 worries about grants, but having no
experience with them, I will take Rane's word for it that it is possible
to avoid them.  I think we should keep the pifalls in mind, though, if we
decide to apply for a grant.  (In other words, I believe Rane when he says
that it's possible to get a grant and not be subject to strings or promote
disinterest among users, but I'm not convinced that things can't go awry. 
So I think we should be careful.)