Non-paying members (continued...)

Jan 3 03:05 UTC 1997

Item 34 started a discussion about voting by "non-paying members," but the
item was frozen from further responses, maybe by the author.  In order to
continue the discussion, I'm re-entering what was said there so far....
 
Item 34: Non-paying membership
Entered by Paul Kershaw (babozita) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (13:13):
   <item is frozen>
 
 The current bylaws say that any member of Grex may submit a motion to
 change the bylaws. I would like to suggest the creation of a verified
 voter class, for persons who can't necessarily afford to become members
 but who nonetheless would like to have a say in how things are run. Either
 that, or I would like a change to the statements in Grex bylaws which
 suggest or say that this community is open and non-discriminatory towards
 paying members. As a NPO, it is barred from acting in such a way as to
 require payment of dues for equal treatment. It may, of course, sell items
 or otherwise raise funds to support costs. IT may also have a paying
 member class. But I think that if Grex is as much about community as
 certain BOD individuals claim it is, then they should not be the least bit
 threatened by having a non-paying voting member class. I volunteer to
 verify non-paying members. Non-paying members would have as their sole
 privelegethe right to vote; I would also suggest that paying members might
 be given some sort of weight to their votes, such as 2-to-1. (This, of
 course, is depatable.) (debatable)
 
 I cannot submit this motion, of course, because I'm not a member of Grex.
 Discussion?
 
7 responses total.
 
 
#1 of 7: by Paul Kershaw (babozita) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (13:14):
 In short: put up or shut upp.
 (see item 27)
 
#2 of 7: by David Cahill (dpc) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (13:46):
 There is absolutely nothing in either Michigan non-profit law (which
 governs Grex) or Federal 501(c)(3) law (which doesn't govern Grex) which
 prohibits giving votes and/or other only to paying members. I will oppose
 the motion if it is made.
 
#3 of 7: by Ryan Antkowiak (ryan1) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (14:28):
 I also will oppose it.
 
#4 of 7: by Scott Helmke (scott) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (15:01):
 Paul Kershaw, you *could* be a member, for less than the cost of driving
 from Lansing-area to Ann Arbor for GNO weekly.  Since GNO seems to have
 died, you now have some free income.
 
 Put up or shut up.
 
#5 of 7: by Valerie Mates (popcorn) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (16:06):
 Anybody, member or not, can influence elections by speaking eloquently in
 co-op, convincing the voters to vote their way.  In fact, as a voter, you
 control only one vote, but as a speaker in co-op, you can influence many
 more than just one vote.
 
 Grex needs the money that comes in for memberships.  If Grex didn't have
 to pay for its own electricity, rent, and phone bills, having a non-paying
 member category would make a lot more sense.
 
#6 of 7: by Paul Kershaw (babozita) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (16:17):
 Thnk you, Scott.
 #4 was precisely the purpose of this item.
 I knew that this would in general be o oosed, as it's been suggested
 before.
 
 My purpose was to illustrate that at least one BOD member, and the former
 (current?) president at that, was biased against non-paying members.
 
 Thank you for being stupid enough to show your true colors, Scott.
 .'.
 (er, in general opposed)
 
#7 of 7: by David Cahill (dpc) on Thu, Jan  2, 1997 (16:27):
 Oop!  #2 should read in part "votes and/or other *services* only to
 paying members."
        It is unfair to say that Scott or anyone else is "biased" against
 non-paying members.  Consider what non-paying members get for free, and
 think again.

response 2 of 32:

Jan 3 04:27 UTC 1997

   I would oppose this measure if it ever came to a vote as well.

   My first reason is becuase it creates layers of membership on
Grex, which is something I abhor.  I really think Grex is better
off in having as little structure/rules as we can get away with.

   My second reason is a more selfish one, in that the paying
members would be dwarfed by the non-paying ones, thus losing
control of the system.  That is selfish to an extent, I admit.
But without the paying members, where would Grex be?  Nowhere.
Grex doesn't give "perks" for paying, beyond the ability to
have a say in matters.  If anyone who came onto Grex had a
say, what number of paying folks might leave?  What incentive
is there left for them to contribute?

   My last reason is purely mechanical: we'd have to add more
people to staff for voting purposes, and to keep track of all
the validation paperwork sent in.  Right now, one person can
keep track of it all.  At a thousand, that doesn't work any
more.  There are also some technical issues with regard to
keeping track of members too, that we'd have to deal with.

response 4 of 32:

Jan 3 04:49 UTC 1997

I also like to believe that "showing your true colors" is never "stupid".

response 6 of 32:

Jan 3 07:13 UTC 1997

The current system was created by a group of persons that pooled some of
their resources to create it in its essentially present form. They had a
vision for how they wanted it to work but did not create a director-based
organization, so they could control it absolutely, forever: they opened to
the public on the basis of membership. It has survived quite well on that
basis. Could the proposed system, based on a voting non-membership,
survive? Could it even be created? I doubt it - but don't take my word for
it, Paul. Try to start a conferencing system yourself, based on a voting
non-membership. 

response 8 of 32:

Jan 3 11:18 UTC 1997

Regarding STeve's post: I don't see voting as a perk of membership at all,
as if when I happen to be a member Grex becomes my personal toy somehow to
change to suit me, or something.  I don't see any shred of evidence that those
who have become members have ever voted for anything on any basis other than
the good of the whole system - as they see it, of course.

response 10 of 32:

Jan 3 18:34 UTC 1997

I think the point trying to be made wasn't actually about
membership but about the fact that some members and people
in power (such as Scott) seem to ignore or take less seriously
what non-members say in COOP. I myself am not a member of
Grex and sometimes i feel like that and the fact that I'm
16 leave a lot of people toally ignoring me in COOP. And why shouldn;t
they? why should I even discuss issues to be voted upon if I
can't vote? Because somebody made it that way.
--I think all babozita was trying to say was that sometimes it really
seems like the intro screen to coop is misadvertising.  I agree with
his point, though to a lesser extent.
--Scott it's really rude to tell someoen what they can and cannot
affort. Really unprofessional and obnoixious. *jenna shakes her head*

response 12 of 32:

Jan 3 18:47 UTC 1997

Jenna slipped in with #10. Jenna, I have been a member for a few years, and
not infrequently I feel "a lot of people toally ignoring me in COOP"! It
isn't because you are not a member. It happens because most users are
anxious to express their ideas and even proceed without giving much heed to
the ideas expressed by others. Personally, I don't pay much attention to the
distinction between who can vote and who cannot - unless it is brought up by
others (and then it doesn't make much difference to me in discussions).

response 14 of 32:

Jan 3 20:38 UTC 1997

  I had no idea of Jenna's (or Catriona's) membership status or age.  I'm
sure that's true for most co-op participants.  People may consider the
source when they read responses, but I doubt age or membership status are
usually factors, even if they are known.  (Although people can type
"!members" to see the current member list if they're curious).
 
  Responses that 95% of people disagree with, or that are rude, often get
more responses than polite discourse supporting popular opinion.  It's
hard to know whether you're really being ignored or not when people don't
respond to what you've written, but it happens to everyone.
 
  On the topic of Scott's "rudeness," it seems like the rudest thing he
said was "put up or shut up," which was quoting back Paul's first response.
People tend to be ruder to those who initiate rudeness; seems fair to me!

response 16 of 32:

Jan 3 23:45 UTC 1997

Rob Argy, I know bery little about you. BUT I'm telling you
tht even thou8gh I know nothing about you you can afford to
be a grex member...
If I were you, I'd think I was VERY rude and incosiderate.
If you did that to me I'd have to tekll you I'm 16, my family
is in debt, I used to go to GNO because my dad went to a2 on
buisness every thursday night.
If Scott had said that to me, I would be hesistant to ever become
amember. In fact, comments like that, even not directed at me,
make me feel that way. Why be a member iof the President of the BOD
is an asshole to me?
(not that he's said that to me... but still, the point holds)

response 18 of 32:

Jan 4 02:32 UTC 1997

Part of the problem here, as I see it, is that Scott and the rest of the board
and staff are first individuals, *then* members of staff or board.  If someone
personally attacks Scott, and he personally responds, it should be taken for
what it is: a personal interchange.  Scott was not acting as president, but
as Scott.  I am not posting this as a staff member, but as Daniel, a fairly
normal 19 year old college student.  I have opinions, and so does Scott.  We
express our opinions as individuals.  (disclaimer:  the following is a
request, not an attack, not aimed at anyone, not trying to start a fight. 
Please please please take it that way.) Please keep that in mind, when you
are tempted to take something out on Grex for what an individual has said.


Now, if Scott or I were to, say, reap your account for a personal attack, that
would be a staff matter, and I would hope sincerely we would be immediately
removed from staff for that.

response 20 of 32:

Jan 4 08:38 UTC 1997

It is that "happiness to provide" that is being questioned- the attitude a
non-member often feels in here from members is one of- you are beginning to
annoy me- thank gods you aren't a member, because that way it's easier to
discount your viewpoints as stupid suggestions from non-contributors.
        Now let me say that I'm over that feeling, mostly. But, do keep in mind
that to amny of us non-members, THAT IS HOW YOU GUYS CAN COME OFF LIKE.
I am not attackig you- I merely want you guys to have a clearer idea of what
is working against you- it seems to be mystifying some of you.

response 22 of 32:

Jan 5 03:04 UTC 1997

She's right... it is how you members sometimes come off.
I'd become a member if there was a way to do it that didn;'t
involve money (like most non-profit organizations have) for
people who are actually poor enough to need such a membership.
--
But hey... I do't expect that, I just don't wanna be bagered
ablut becoming a member.
-
I have some questions that are serioulsy about the issue of
non-members rights.

1) Why do we not have a "Donators" status? People who can't vote
as they're not verified or haven't necessarily paid the exact
amount 60$ per year od 6$ per month, but who have contributed to
Grex. NO special anything, just a standing, aknowledgement that
you'd be hapy to take donations in any amount from anybody, which I
think you would.
  Why?
  Son someone who only has 30 dollars to give to Grex can still feel
like they're supporting the system even though they're not a member.
Really it's just terminology,l I dfon't know if Grex gets a lot
of donations, but then Grex doesn't always push for donations with
the same gusto it pushes for memberships.

2) Though I do believe members shjould have exclusive voting rights
and fully understnad not wanting to let non-members vote, I sincerely
think it is important to listen towhat the plain old ordinary users want.
(to a degree) I think ti would be great if Grex reserved one vote,
a tie-breaking vote for the users. I don't know if Grex has an even
number of members right now, but any time it might, this would be a nice way
to resolve ties (or when an uneven number of people actually vote).
Otherwise it would be a courtesy, not really affecting the otucome.
    How do I think this should be done?
    open a program similar to !vote to non-members. Whichever way
the entire user vote goes on an issue,cast that as a single vote
in that direction.
    Unfortunaltely, I don't know how feasible #2 is, not being
a programmer at all.
--
These are some sincere ideas, all hostilities aside.

response 24 of 32:

Jan 5 05:04 UTC 1997

I think our track record on listening to non-members is pretty good.  Take
for example the recent question over whether non-members can be nominated.
I think all the strong supporters of that idea were non-members, and the board
backed them.  The discussion about allowing unregistered users to read via
backtalk is certainly inconclusive so far, but I sure don't see the
non-members being "ignored" there.  I don't see non-members being "ignored"
anywhere.