I'd like to propose that Grex's bylaws be altered to make provision for "corporate members". A corporate membership would be a vehicle by which corporations could be recognized for supporting Grex. The rate would be the same as regular members, and corporate members could have an account with Internet privileges, but they would not be eligible to vote in Grex elections. The amendment would also clarify that regular, voting members must be individuals. I'm not sure how we "validate" corporate accounts. Probably the best solutions would be to validate some person who will be responsible if there are problems with the corporate account. It'd be nice to be confident that that person has some connection to the corporation though. I'm not suggesting specific wording at this point. Doing a bit of brainstorming first seems like a good idea.135 responses total.
A bit of a background note: Grex has a sort of corporate member now, the "convocat" account. This kind of slipped in before we decided that our current bylaws don't actually make any provision for such a thing. It hasn't been a problem in any way, except that the board feels that it technically violates our rules as written. The feeling of the board was that we really would like to find a way to allow such things. The board, however, does not have the power to alter the bylaws. This needs to be done by member vote. Hence this proposal.
It's welcome. I've been "working" toward this for some time now, though thinking just in terms of non-profit corporations (our natural allies) rather than also for-profit corporations (though these have all the money :)). The survey I have been conducting of non-profits has been directed toward just such a bylaw change as you are suggesting. You "validate" the account with the corporation's resident agent - this is a matter of public record, and the person every corporation must name for the purpose of contacting the corporation with legal notices, etc. Require that the name and address of the corporate resident agent be provided to the treasurer (even better, on record in a public file).
This idea has merit and as long as the organization doesn't have a vote I'll be able to support it. One caution though - is there a way we can make it known that an organization's account is really not intended to be used for heavy-usage / commercial internet access? We always run the risk of individuals using more bandwidth than a busy system tolerates and when this happens the individual in asked to be gentle with the resources. I'm sure an organization would find out soon enough how slow and painful it would be to to try to over-use our link. But maybe it would spare some disappointment if we warned organizations up-front that their access should be handled with the same sensitivity to bandwidth limitations as any other (individual) account. Also, would any organization who wanted a membership be granted a membership? I'd really hate to see some accepted and some not. I'd hope if the KKK wanted a membership they'd be allowed in just like the PFC.
I agree that any corporation could join. I don't see any reason to limit it to non-profits, and I certainly wouldn't want to filter out "politically incorrect" ones. I think we would handle excess bandwidth use the same way that we do for individual users. There probably ought to be some statement about that where ever we advertize this.
I also support this concept. Having a good relationship with organizations is good for Grex and will attract people through those relationships.
re #3 I'm working on fixing the grex bandwidth problem, by next BoD meeting I should have something for everyone. re all I'm (am I voting capable.. i dunno ;) in support of this and if my vote counts, I would vote for corporate memberships without a vote. You don't want someone to be able to get a few corporate memberships and be able to sway a vote.. not like they probally couldn't buy them from folks anyways if they had the money to blow to fix an election that way.. Irregardless, we should probally look at the m-net policy on this and base the wording off of that somewhat, I remember this being an issue when i was on their BoD.
india, as guests, do a lot of heavy traffic hat bogs the system. a corporate account would be less of a burden than the continent of india, i would think. thesingle stipulation of difference is in the voting. i support this ammendment.
Today morning I tried to log it showed counter 42. it took five minutes for me to log. Eeven the hotmail.com is pissed becaues of indians. :)
Thanks for entering this, Jan. I support it too.
I recommend that it be called an "institutional" or "organizational" membership. Schools, for example, while corporations, are seldom referred to as part of the "corporate world", which usually denotes for-profit corporations.
re 10 Yeah.. makese sense.
I think this is a fine idea.
This response has been erased.
Re #10: Good idea, Rane.
works for me too...
It would certainly be interesting to see the m-net wording. I would hesitate to borrow *any* m-net wording though without first looking carefully at it. There are some *very* strange bylaw provisions on m-net.
Would an "institutional" member account be internet-enabled the same as for an individual member account? If so, then you want some human's name (verified) on record to be responsible for use of a grex internet-enabled account.
M-Net allows corporations to be members, but not to vote. The wording
is as follows:
Bylaw Section 3.01(a) says: "Membership in Arbornet includes
any person who either: (1) has paid yearly dues to the corporation,
the rate of which is set by the Board of Directors, such membership
starting on the day of the year on which duesare received by the
treasurer, and continuing unil that date of the following year;
(2) is an M-Net member; or (3) is an M-Net patron."
Being an Arbornet member isn't enough to give you the vote,
however. That right is reserved for Arbornet members in good standing
(MIGS). Bylaw 3.01(b)(4) says that a requirement for being a
MIGS is that "the person is not a corporation."
I don't know if that helps or not. 8-)
Grex sure is a special place.
Ouch. Bylaws should simply define each 'class' of membership and its privileges and responsibilities (if they are not generic). 3.01 is a poorly written bylaw. Re #17: I had suggested earlier that the corporations *resident agent* be carried on the Grex books. Or corporations have one, and that person is the legal contact between the state and the corporation. It might be OK to also record whatever name the corporation offers - an officer, or 'liaison' -, as such a person might be the practical contact for any everyday matter. But the resident agent is the legal contact.
Re #20: Do you think we need to be that strict? I'd suggest we accept validation information from any officer of the corporation. But we do need to have a real person as contact, I think.
This response has been erased.
I like the way Grex tries to keep it simple. That takes effort and is not what happens if you just let change happen. I was not being sarcastic.
Did I mention that I wrote the present language of 3.01(a)? It's *beautifully* written, considering that the Arbornet memberships of various kinds carry a lot of baggage. 8-)
I don't think I'd open myself to that one, dave.
Hm. So far no blast from the bylaw literary critic...
So far, no suggested bylaw wording.
Here's a draft of a bylaw amendment enabling "institutional members" without
a right to vote. I've tried to keep the changes clear but minimal. Changed
or added sections are in [brackets]. Only changed sections are given here.
============================================================================
ARTICLE 2: MEMBERSHIP
a. Any [individual or institution] supporting the goals and objectives of
this organization as enumerated in the Preamble, and who agrees to
abide by these bylaws and pay dues, is eligible for membership.
b. To be eligible to vote, [an individual] must be a current member and
have paid a minimum of three months dues.
[c. Institutional members are never eligable to vote.]
ARTICLE 3: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
a. The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven [individual]
members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary, and a
treasurer.
d. Nominations for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th.
Any person may submit nominations. All nominees must be [individual]
Grex members as of the start of the voting period. Board elections
will be held between the 1st and 15th of December. The required
number of candidates receiving the largest number of votes are
seated on the board commencing January 1st.
============================================================================
NOTES:
- Nothing is said here about internet access or validation. None of that
is covered in the bylaws. The intent is that institutional members
would have net access and would be validated by whatever method makes
sense (see the discussion above for examples).
- I've insisted that board members be individual members. You could let
institutional members designate a representative who could run for a
board seat, but I decided it wasn't an option worth bothering with.
- Section 5a says:
Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose.
I haven't changed this to "individual member" because I think it would
be perfectly OK to let institutional members put forward proposals for
a membership vote. They just can't voe on them.
Please comment.
Looks good to me, Jan.
This response has been erased.
Excellent, Jan!
Is there any further discussion on this? Or should I go ahead and call for the vote?
There are a couple of statements which should, at some point, be re-worded for clarity, but they have been part of the bylaws from the beginning and have nothing to do with this proposal. I think your wording is just fine and I hope this passes.
A agree. I think it would be worthwhile to do a language clean-up amendment. In particular, I don't think the statement of purpose fully captures Grex's mission. However, for this point, the goal should be to keep the changes as minimal and directed as possible.
OK, I hereby call for a vote on the following proposal:
============================================================================
Given that Grex's bylaws currently allow only individuals to be members, it
is proposed that the following amendments be made to allow institutions that
donate money to Grex to hold non-voting Grex memberships. [Changed portions
are enclosed in square brackets.]
ARTICLE 2: MEMBERSHIP
a. Any [individual or institution] supporting the goals and objectives of
this organization as enumerated in the Preamble, and who agrees to
abide by these bylaws and pay dues, is eligible for membership.
b. To be eligible to vote, [an individual] must be a current member and
have paid a minimum of three months dues.
[c. Institutional members are never eligible to vote.]
ARTICLE 3: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
a. The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven [individual]
members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary, and a
treasurer.
d. Nominations for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th.
Any person may submit nominations. All nominees must be [individual]
Grex members as of the start of the voting period. Board elections
will be held between the 1st and 15th of December. The required
number of candidates receiving the largest number of votes are
seated on the board commencing January 1st.
=============================================================================
Sounds good to me.
Okay, I'll set up the vote program sometime today. According to the election procedures in the bylaws, the vote will run for a period of 10 days, with a 3/4 majority of yes votes by those voting needed for passage.
The polls are now open. Type !vote at a bbs or menu prompt, or just plain vote at a shell prompt, to cast a ballot. To allow 10 full days for voting, the polls will close at midnight EDT on July 11.
This response has been erased.
I voted.
Me 2!
Yo tambien.
The first draft of this motion was posted on 25 June (response #28 above).
The bylaws provide
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
This means that discussion must continue for two weeks from 25 June,
or until 9 July. The current vote is premature.
I offer as a suggested change to the wording in c.:
[c. Institutional members are [not] eligible to vote.]
"Not" is preferable to "never", as the question is whether *or not*
intitutional members are eligible to vote.
I voted.
Re #43: The substance of the proposal was entered in #0 on June 2. Wording is always subject to change during the discussion period, so the fact that it didn't get *called* a motion until response #28 strikes me as splitting hairs. The full two weeks (and more) was allowed for discussing this proposal. So I disagree that the vote is premature. I don't make the final decision on that, of course. But I'll keep the polls open until the announced date, unless the board decides that Rane is correct.
NO wording of a motion was entered in #0. The members and other interested persons can only respond to the particulars of a motion if the motion is stated. The bylaw quoted above specifies that any member "may make a motion by entering it as the text of a discussion item". Entering an idea for discussion, without the specifics of a motion, is very common here. We often do this, and after some discussion the proposer of the idea may or may not enter a *motion*, which starts the two-weeks clock. This was not done here until 25 June. In this case we were presented with the text of a motion only 6 days before the vote was begun. The spirit of the bylaw is that there be a two week period for consideration of a motion, since not everyone logs in nearly every day. I believe that this current vote is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the bylaws. I request that it be halted, and the proper discussion period be held.
This response has been erased.
The title "Bylaw Amendment Proposal: Corporate Memberships" and the fact that the substance was entered in #0 seems to differentiate this from other "entering an idea for discussion" items. What do other folks think?
I'm not sure, but this does strike me as too early.
I don't know. I think 0 is a proposal for an amendment, and I think enough time has passed...
I'm inclined to agree that #0 can be considered, so the vote doesn't appear premature to me. I'm not a board member, but that's my opinion.
#0 is just an idea, without any particulars. There are many ways to carry it out, and better or worse ways to word it. The wording of a bylaw amendment does have some importance, for clarity, conciseness, consistency with other bylaws and/or policies, etc. I can understand why those that agreed with the idea would think that the required period of discussion of the motion had passed - especially if they agreed with the wording eventually proposed. But, as we saw, the wording presented on 25 June was changed by Jan. It was clear that a process of discussion was underway, which was prematurely terminated.
Hmm. Here's the relevant bylaws section:
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
If #0 can't be considered as "entering a motion" for purposes of
starting the clock ticking, then I don't think that anything else
in this item can either. Section a says that the proposal has to be
entered as the "text of a discussion item". This rules out its
being a response entered somewhere after the discussion has begun.
My thinking was that because the title of the item clearly announced
that this was a bylaw amendment proposal, and the substance of the
proposal was given in #0, that the clock could start ticking with #0.
From the fact that he called for a vote, I inferred that this was Jan's
intent as well, although I could be wrong.
But I also don't want to set bad precedents, as they open the door to
future abuses. Would we be doing that by letting the current vote
continue?
I consider "make a motion" as the critical phrase. A motion has a particular structure. It states precisely what will be done, by whom, when, etc. A general proposal is not a motion. As a compromise, I suggest that the vote be continued, but that the motion be open to amendment up until 9 July, and then proceed for the requisite voting period after that. If any change is made in the motion before 9 July, notice of it should be made in the motd. This is all possible because of the flexibility of the voting program to allow one to change one's vote.
This response has been erased.
I agree with the compromise proposed by Rane in #54. We are not voting on the general idea discussed in #0, but on the specifid text as written on June 25. On all future items, we should adhere to the concept that the two week discussion period begins when the final text of the proposal has been entered. Since we have already started the vote, I think we should continue it this time. If this happens again, I think we should cancel voting and begin after two weeks of discussion have taken place.
Think about that Bill. What would be the good of having a set two week discussion period that follows the finished wording? We have never stipulated this be done. In fact, with most votes the final wording of a motion hasn't been put together until just before the vote started. The final wording *follows* the discussion. Jan made his intentions clear when he stated in #0 he was proposing a change to the bylaws to clarify organizational-type accounts. I think Rane is just doing what Rane does best. ;-)
I'm not sure if the vote is premature or not. I think Rane's compromise would be OK. I think changing "never" to "not" would be an improvement. But it doesn't seem a big thing one way or another.
I guess that when I originally entered the item, I was suggesting an idea and feeling out what people would want to see in such a proposal. I got a sense of general support for the idea, and some good suggestions, like calling it "institutional membership" rather than "corporate membership". Then I posted some suggested wording for the bylaw changing. After a bit more discussion I incorporated that wording into a proposal for the bylaw change. I'm not exactly sure at what point along this sequence the "discussion period" started. The subject has certainly been discussed for far longer than this item has existed. I think the concept of "institutional memberships" has recieved adequate discussion, but the specific wording (eg, "never" vs "not") might have been given a little more time. I am, however, not happy with making even trivial changes to the wording after some people have voted. That's worse than bad grammar. I would also be unhappy about stopping the vote and starting it again in a few days. Many people who voted during the first period, won't vote during the second because they think they have already voted on this issue. This would screw up the vote pretty badly. That's worse than bad grammar too. So I think that (1) this vote should continue as started, to minimize confusion, (2) we should talk about clarifying the bylaws on when exactly the discussion period starts (if they aren't clear enough already), and (3) we should someday do a "clean-up" amendment on the bylaws, making a bunch of non-substantive changes to the bylaws to improve wording and clarity. We could fix "never" then.
What happened was that the current bylaw was not followed. That bylaw provides that a motion be offered, which was not done until 25 June. There is then supposed to be two weeks of discussion before the 'final' version of the motion is presented, and the vote starts. However this period was abbreviated to 6 days. I agree that any change now would create confusion, but no more than the departure from the bylaws. I also agree that things can be fixed later. Fortunately, this motion does not make a significant change in Grex operation, and no one seems worried about it. The current provisions for amendments need fixing. They do not allow for the *membership* to amend the motion that is offered, except by the more ponderous procedure of either accepting or rejecting an imperfected motion, and then offering a substitute or new motion. It would be more orderly to allow amendments, require a second (to bypass totally unsupported motions or amendments), and generally follow ordinary procedures for handling motions in meetings.
Yes, Mary, you're right. The final version comes *after* the two weeks of discussion. I guess the point I disagree on is the meaning of "make a motion by entering it as the text of a discussion item..." as quoted by Rane in #43. To make a motion, to me, means to propose formal wording as one would at a meeting. It follows from that assumption that the discussion period would begin after the first proposed formal wording was posted. The other interpretation I see here, with which I do not agree, is that the motion can be made simply entering the text of a discussion item as a proposed idea. E.g. Would other members think it was a good idea to do such and such because... That would certainly be a good start to a discusion item, but would it be the same as making a motion?
When people do start such discussion items someone often says, "why don't you write up a motion and offer it for a vote" (or similar).
I agree that wording shouldn't be changed during a vote. So is the gist of things to treat the clock tick as starting with the first response in which Jan proposed a formal wording, and extend the voting period accordingly?
I support that (though what I think what was really needed was more discussion of the motion).
It would have been nice to have the announcement of the motion (in the motd, I mean) occur near the start of the discussion period, not at the start of voting. If it was, my apologies - I've been on relatively infrequently lately, & normally skim the motd rather fast due to its bloat.
davel has a good point. Since the posting of a motion starts a timed process, notice of that should be posted to the motd.
the strength of 'never' instead of 'not' is important for this change, imo, adn let the voting extend... adn also put soemtihng in motd.
Re #65: Motd bloat is one reason I'm reluctant to add things there. Haven't done it in the past when a proposal is still in the discussion stage, but I suppose it could be done in the future. I guess my tacit assumption has always been that folks who are interested in grex governance are already reading coop, so there's not a strong need for motd notification. Re #66: It's a timed process, but at the discussion stage has no precisely defined endpoint. Voting starts at some point after a two week period has elapsed, when the proposer comes up with a final wording, but the timing of that is under the propoer's control. Some discussions have gone on for quite a bit longer that two weeks, so notification messages could potentially linger in the motd for a long time. Is that what people want? (Remember, "motd" stands for "message of the DAY"... :-) If I had my druthers, I wouldn't put proposal discussion announcements in the motd, only vote announcements. But if there's wide support for it, I'll do it. How do other people feel?
dont put proposal discussions in the motd. One only has to look at the Feb/March/April confusion about wording and proposals on read-only access via the web to see what a mess that would make the MOTD. We had several proposals going at once and votes queued up so that they wouldnt overlap. Blechh!
Nobody has said that democracy is neat and clean.
It's a good thing I logged in today; I voted at the last possible moment,,
just about... {:
Oops, you have a few more days actually -- see the discussion above. I'll update the announcement.
I don't like putting discussion notifications in the motd. I agree that it is expected for people who care to be reading coop.
i agreew ith not putting 'discussion notificatins' into the motd. i do agree, however, support and recommend that 'voting notice' be qyite prominent in motd. . po
This response has been erased.
Am I correct in concluding that I don't have to vote again?
That's right, you don't have to vote again. The voting period has just been extended a bit to account for the fact that the first formal wording was given not in response #0 but in a later response. By my calculations that means that voting should end July 19, rather than July 11 as originally announced.
Midnight of July 19 has passed, the polls are closed, and the votes have been counted. Of 90 members eligible to vote, 30 voted -- 29 in favor of the bylaw amendment, 1 against. The amendment passes. (The unofficial non-member vote was 23 in favor, 8 against.)
(is there any way to vote from 'backtalk'? i know this question comes rather late in the day; still ...)
(Not yet, but I'm working on it.)
I've updated the archives. The latest version of the Bylaws are in /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/bylaws.v4. Something I found when updating the document - in the vote one of the sections being changed was misidentified as being Article 3d. It is really Article 4d. I don't think this should mean much but thought it should be mentioned.
I'll enter the new bylaws into the bylaws item here in coop. Question: Should I enter the whole thing, or just the changes? For now, I'll enter the whole thing. Better yet, is there a way I can change the contents of 0?
Editing the item file should work fine, if you want to change the item text. I think it woould be a reasonable thing to do. I entered my response in the wrong item. Here are the relevant parts: I suppose we right now have one institutional member, convocat. If this is retroactive (I gather Convocat doesn't mind) then convocat loses its vote, and should be taken out of the voters group in the /etc/group file. We should probably update our literature to indicate that (1) institutional memberships are welcome, but (2) they don't get a vote. There'd been talk about having lists of institutional and individual donor on the web page. Probably only people who want to be listed should be. We should think about that.
Unless I misread the motd, this motion passed 29-1?
Re #83: I guess you could argue that the motion was retroactive, but we did very specifically address the issue of whether convocat would be grandfathered in the May (April?) board meeting - and we decided it would be. I agree that it would be simpler to take it out of the voters group right now, but I don't think we should unless Kami gives her consent. I sent her mail about it, but she's out of town at the moment. I think you're probably right, and she won't care, but if she does, I think we should let convocat stay in the voters group until October, when its membership runs out.
Re #84: That's correct, 29-1.
This response has been erased.
Kami gave me permission to remove convocat from the voters group, so I have done that.
The posted bylaws (item 2) still need to be amended.
The most up to date version of the Bylaws are at: /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/bylaws.v4 Rather than altering the original item's content the newest version could simply be entered as a response in the item. Since item #2 is frozen this would need to be done by either tsty or dang.
the lastest set of ammended bylaws, as you probably have already seen, is now posted in item #2.
The information about Grex membership that one gets with the command support needs to be corrected to include the new Institutional membership.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I'd like to suggest a slight revision that will give greater prominance to Institutional membership. You can read the current version with the command support at an Ok: prompt, or my version with the command more /a/r/l/rcurl/support The main reason for the revision is to make Institutional membership more attractive to organizations, so that they are more likely to become members.
I think that path is a little wrong. I had better luck at /a/r/c/rcurl/support. The wording is fine.
To be really correct, do ~rcurl/support
If you plan to make this a formal bylaw amendment to be voted on by the members, I'd suggested entering a new item whose text is the proposed wording, to conform to the bylaw amendment procedures, and so that there will be no confusion as to when the voting can start.
Sorry for the typo in #95. Anyway, my suggestion concerns the wording of the message obtained with the command support which is not a bylaw matter but just something that was written to encourage and provide information about membership. Currently, Institutional memberships are mentioned as sort of an afterthought. I suggest my wording to explain and encourage them more clearly. I am entering this suggestion in this item as it is a continuation of the implementation of the recent bylaw change, and didn't seem worthy of a separate item.
Hmmm... I think your text is fine, Rane, except that you cut out mention of non-membership contributions, and I'd like to see that stay in there, because some people (especially those who aren't comfortable being validated) want to help Grex but don't want to become members. While we're on the subject, I think the support text is a little confusing when it comes to being validated. It seems to imply that people need to send in ID only if they want internet privileges, while in fact we require *all* members to provide ID. (There is no such thing as a member without internet privileges. I'm not trying to restart the argument about whether there should be one - if you'd like to propose that, please start another item.) I wish the text could be reworded to make the current policy clear, but I'm not sure how to do that without sounding opressive.
OK. I have edited ~rcurl/support to mention both donations from members or non-members, and to clarify ID request. Please check it out again.
This response has been erased.
Aarrgghh! One person says use ~, and says use full path....what is a
beginner to believe? 8^{
Looks good Rane. Can I suggest inserting the word "Random" at the beginning of the sentence "Donations from members or non-members are also welcome"? I think that will help to clarify what the sentence means to people who haven't thought much about the difference between donations for membership and other donations.
Re #95: Oops, I misunderstood. Thought you were proposing a
bylaw change.
(To belabor the issue of access to the 'support' file a bit
more: Where it is now, it's not web-accessible, and Backtalk
users -- who can't do Unix commands like 'more' -- are unable
to get to it. Rane can fix this by entering, at the shell
prompt, the commands
cd
ln support www
chmod 755 www
and mentioning the URL
http://grex.cyberspace.org/~rcurl/support
in this item. (Guess I just did that, eh?) Then Backtalk users
can see the file simply by clicking on the URL, while telnet and
dialup users can still use !more.
Sorry for the digression, but now that there's a web interface
to the conferences, it's important to keep in mind that this
interface doesn't support Unix commands. It supports access to
personal files though, as long as they're in one's www
directory. People who store files online for people to look at
might want to keep that in mind.)
I have edited it to read "Donations at any time...." I thought this was clearer than "random" (being a professional statistician...). The file should also be net-readable now. Please check it out (I don't use Backtalk). Was it necessary to permit www 755? Should not 711 work just as well, since the file name is known? I had some files in www I did not want world readable (though they have been removed).
Heh..I just read it anyway by opening the URL. I also confirmed that 711 works just as well, so I am 'back in business'.
(Right, 711 will work too. It prevents people from listing the the directory, but a file in it can be accessed if it is world readable and the user happens to know its name.)
If everyone is satisfied with the proposed new wording of "support", what is the next step in having it replace the current wording?
I still think there should be an adjective before "Donations", but if you don't like "random", I'm not sure what to put there instead. The way it reads now someone might interpret it to be saying that membership dues are not a form of donation. I know I'm picking nits, and it probably doesn't matter, but lately quite a number of people have written to me asking about membership, and most of them don't understand that we're a non-profit enterprise. They are thinking in terms of paying us for a service. It takes some explaining on my part to disabuse them of this notion. Can anyone else suggest a word we might put in front of "donations" to make it clear that the sentence is referring to donations *other than for membership*?
I have edited /a/r/c/rcurl/support further, to attempt to satisfy Mark's concerns. It now says that dues are donations.
"non-membership donations"?
"other donations?"
That's what I use in the version cited in #111. Have a look.
I think that sounds good, Rane. Thanks for working on it.
This response has been erased.
Thanks. I have been 'pushing' this, by the way, in order to have a form that I can use to solicit Institutional members. I'm glad that the other points have also been improved along the way. (What would you mean by a "random donation"? A *spontaneous* donation? Or, you flip coins to determine whether to donate? :))
I mean a donation which is not attached to any set of effects, as are dues and pledges and purchases in the auction. Maybe "pointless" would be a good word. ;) I guess I was thinking of that bumper sticker which says "Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty". I guess the "random" in that statement is derived from the phrase "random acts of violence".
You hardly see people on street corners flipping coins to determine who to mug.
Sure you do :) someone flipped a coin on whether to mug me just last week. I stood up, though, and looked down at them, and a head inexplicably became a tail. or so they said :)
A *deliberate* donation is probably more likely to eventuate (it occurring to me that some of the recent pledges that have not been paid might be "random donations" - i.e., chancy).
The use of the word "random" that Valerie and Mark espouse is techno-jargon. Rane is discussing the precise meaning of "random". I like both uses, but each in its place. I would vote with Rane not to use the geeky jargon definition of random in this document. "non-membership" donation works for me.
This response has been erased.
The expression "non-membership donation" does not occur in /a/r/c/rcurl/support.
Re #123: Yeah, but how "random" sounds to you is not the issue. I basically agree with srw's #122, and in fact was thinking of entering a similar comment, but he beat me to it. I think Rane's wording is fine, and clear enough.
Random sounded good to me. sort of the "I have extra money, I'll give it to grex" type of thing.
I disagree that "random donation" is "geeky jargon". The expression "random violence", which is not geeky at all, ought to dispell that thought. One of the definitions of random in my dictionary is "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern", and that's about what I meant: a random donation is one that is made without a plan for getting something in return. But anyway, this is water under the bridge, because I think Rane's current wording is fine.
Don't we want *planned giving*? :)
Well, we don't want "accidental" giving. But giving needn't be organized, no.
Can we proceed with the change?
It's fine with me.
This response has been erased.
Thanks!
Oh. I didn't know that.
This response has been erased.
You have several choices: