|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 56 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 7 of 56:
| 
Sep 28 22:24 UTC 2010 |
Considering we aren't trying anything new around here, per se, but
rather debating it ad nauseum (these sorts of what do we do discussions
have been going on for years and on mostly the same topics), we probably
will coast.
But that's not what I'd like see. It is within our power to keep it from
happening. This is partly where Mark's comment about "more enthusiasm"
comes in. We need to think more about what we can do rather than about
what we don't like, what we can't do, etc. You don't know until you
try. And we need to act rather quickly.
A lot depends on what we can accomplish in terms of applications and
improvements to applications on the system that might attract new
users (for example, those who want to avoid a command line). Whether
such improvements would attract any new users, let alone any number
approaching what we need to continue operation (with any dues level)
remains to be seen. (But consider that we aren't asking people to become
members in any significant way and are, after over 9 months, still
trying to figure out to send out renewal notices!).
I do think we can get more users if we "provide a system worth
supporting" as one user said, and some users are asking for web-based
applications (and note that this does not mean that if we implemented
more web-based apps, the CLI apps would go away. There is no good reason
they can't remain).
The fact that we can't compete directly with Facebook or Twitter is
not an issue since we are looking at a niche market anyway. And that
doesn't mean we can't have a more modern interace to the system. There
are plenty of small backwater web sites on the internet that have
small but thriving, active communities. They aren't trying to compete
directly with any of the big social web sites. We don't need to compete
directly, either. I doubt we want to be that big of an operation,
anyway. We can define success differently.
However, without enthusiasm and a willingness to participate in a
meaningful fashion, it all falls apart.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 56:
|
Sep 29 03:47 UTC 2010 |
Might try dues of $25/annum. In another organization that has dues of $24/a,
a lot of members send $25 anyway. Some sort of "round number" psychology is
at play (not that 25 looks very round).
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 56:
|
Sep 29 11:33 UTC 2010 |
Would you send in $25 a year? Anyone?
|
kentn
|
|
response 10 of 56:
|
Sep 29 12:45 UTC 2010 |
Rather than $60, sure, $25 sounds really good in comparison. One big
question, though, is what that dues level looks like to new users.
|
slynne
|
|
response 11 of 56:
|
Sep 29 15:49 UTC 2010 |
Yes. I would send in $25 a year. I would send in $60 too but I keep
finding myself in financial situations where I just can't. But those are
unanticipated things.
|
cross
|
|
response 12 of 56:
|
Sep 30 16:18 UTC 2010 |
I'd front five fins for Grex.
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 56:
|
Sep 30 16:46 UTC 2010 |
Me too, assuming a fin is a five.
|
cross
|
|
response 14 of 56:
|
Oct 1 05:08 UTC 2010 |
Yeah.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 15 of 56:
|
Oct 2 16:01 UTC 2010 |
Kent, expecting new users to figure out that this is a membership
organisation seems a bit much to me, unless the newuser blurb spells it
out. I haven't read the blurb in a while, though. Expecting them to
immediately become members is, I think, completely unreasonable,
especially considering the expressed willingness of those who have been
around a while.
|
kentn
|
|
response 16 of 56:
|
Oct 2 16:44 UTC 2010 |
I see nothing wrong with trying to encourage people to become members
when they first log in. That's why having the system be more useful
and inviting is a big thing. If all they see when they log in is a dead
end, then, no, I doubt they'll see it as worth a membership. At that
point, you've lost them and it's anybody's guess if they'll ever become
a member.
We're not doing a good job of advertising what we do and what the
benfits of membership are, IMO, and we're making it worse by locking the
front door and hollering "Who's there? What's the secret password?".
But Grex has not been actively encouraging memberships for a long time
now (years). As far as I'm concerned, any time is a good time to ask.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 17 of 56:
|
Oct 5 18:14 UTC 2010 |
To me, the advantage of $18.00 per year is that those who pay for three
months at the current rate, which is required to vote on this proposal,
can get a year's membership without further ado. Setting the dues at
$25.00 per year would require some further action to get a year's
membership.
The motivation for changing the dues right now is not so much to raise
money as it is to raise membership. So, based on the discussion to
date, I'm thinking the final text will look like:
"Dues shall be $18.00 per year, or $2.00 per month, effective September
27, 2010."
We still have a week to discuss the matter.
|
mary
|
|
response 18 of 56:
|
Oct 5 19:10 UTC 2010 |
Sounds like good reasoning to me, Joe. I'd support this proposal.
I guess now that both of your proposals have had a chance to sit a bit I'm
wondering if you'd consider bringing only one forward to a vote. Doing
otherwise is kind of confusing and if both pass it would be a mess.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 56:
|
Oct 5 20:43 UTC 2010 |
I'd suggest abandoning monthly dues. It makes much more work for the treasurer
as well as a lot of wasted busy work cutting people off and putting them back
on if they don't get monthly dues in on time. Annual dues only makes the most
sense.
|
krj
|
|
response 20 of 56:
|
Oct 5 21:06 UTC 2010 |
I concur; if we are getting down into the $20-$25 range for annual dues,
monthly just doesn't make sense in terms of labor costs. Might want
to leave a six-month option for those who are cash-pinched, though,
as a compromise.
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 56:
|
Oct 5 22:24 UTC 2010 |
I agree with members being given the choice to pay dues for either a six
month period or one year (or more in those increments).
We'll probably want to also change the bylaws which now state -
Article 2
b. To be eligible to vote, an individual must be a current member
and have paid a minimum of three months dues.
Maybe change it from three months to six? Or even one year?
|
kentn
|
|
response 22 of 56:
|
Oct 6 01:48 UTC 2010 |
If we only allow a minimum of 6 mos. that's more than 3 mos. so that's
okay for voting. It would be good if we limit the number of by-law
changes to just those necessary, unless we absolutely need to change
them.
Right now it's members we need for voting, but soon, it'll be members to
help pay the expenses. One thing at a time, I know, but we do need to
see a little farther into the future than just the end of the year. And
we don't want to be moving the dues up and down every time we need money
or voters. So, setting a reasonable level, a happy medium compared to
similar systems, the users' idea of a good dues level, and the Board's
idea of what we need to keep the system running, would probably be best.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 56:
|
Oct 6 03:57 UTC 2010 |
The difference between six months dues and annual dues is too small to justify
the extra work for a volunteer treasurer. If you want options, offer two or
three year or more dues.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 24 of 56:
|
Oct 8 13:51 UTC 2010 |
Kent, if we don't get members, we won't continue past the end of the
year. If we get enough members, then the $18.00 per year will cover our
expenses.
I'm inclined to leave the proposal as is: folks can decide on their own
whether to pay $6.00 just for an election, or $18.00 for the health of
the system. Since there is little other reason to pony up for less than
a year, I don't anticipate a lot of extra work for the treasurer.
|
kentn
|
|
response 25 of 56:
|
Oct 8 19:07 UTC 2010 |
Joe, if we get members, we can get past the end of the year voting, but
we need more than that, most likely, to fund the system. For $18/yr.
at our current expense rate of $140/mo. we'd need 93+ yearly members to
fund one year. How likely do you think we are to get that many members?
If we want to go with a yearly payment structure, we can try that. But
if it doesn't work for the users who want to donate for less than a year
(I agree a month by month plan is rather cumbersome), we'll need to
change it, which is why it'd be good to leave such decisions up to the
Board.
One alternative, if we can't get the requisite number of members, is to
reduce our expenses.
|
mary
|
|
response 26 of 56:
|
Oct 8 19:59 UTC 2010 |
I say we get enough members onboard to give the system cooperative
governance again then we can figure out how to raise the money needed to
keep the lights on.
|
kentn
|
|
response 27 of 56:
|
Oct 8 23:50 UTC 2010 |
Right. Just beware of "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it"
thinking. I have no issue with increasing memberships to help govern
the system, it's with coming up short 6 months later. As I said, one
thing at a time, I know, but that's no reason not to think about what
will happen farther out. I'd think that being reactionary and raising
dues and lowering dues to changing events is something we want to avoid.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 28 of 56:
|
Oct 9 12:45 UTC 2010 |
I agree: yo-yo dues are not a good idea. I really don't think that we
would need to increase the dues before next December. As noted, we have
enough in the bank to coast for a year. At $18.00 per year, ten new
memberships each month is enough to meet current expenses and put some
aside for the future.
IF we come up with a whiz-bang idea that requires a huge outlay of cash
in the next year, we should be able to finance it through a one-time
fund-raising effort. (If we can't, it's probably not such a whiz-bang
idea. ;)
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 29 of 56:
|
Oct 11 19:43 UTC 2010 |
The two-week discussion period expires this evening. At the moment, I'm
inclined to proceed to a vote, which will require endorsement by some
number of members. TS, would you care to share the number currently
required? I realise that the number may not be the same today and at
the end of the voting period. (I *really* hope the numbers will NOT be
the same. ;)
Some time tomorrow, I will enter the text of the proposal. It will be
worded more formally than before, but the gist will be $18.00 per year
or $2.00 per month.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 30 of 56:
|
Oct 12 14:54 UTC 2010 |
The text of my proposal is:
MOTION: That Article 6, "Dues", section a, be amended to read,
"Membership dues are $18.00 per year, or $2.00 per month." Further,
that this amendment be effective retroactively to September 27, 2010;
any payment received by the Treasurer on or after that date shall be
credited at the new dues rate.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 31 of 56:
|
Oct 12 14:54 UTC 2010 |
Just to be clear, any payment received by the Treasurer as late as the
evening of September 26, 2010, would and should be credited at the old
rate.
|