[steering] DRAFT - Call for vote

[javier velasco]

John Handelaar wrote:

> From: "Martin Burns" <martin@easyweb.co.uk>
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, javier velasco wrote:
> >
> > > - Transform members.evolt.org into something that is more of a community
> > > building service (evolters.org), while doing the best to offer painless
> > > transfer (away) options to our current m.e.o. users.
> >
> > Needs the specific info there that the new service will be paid for, and
> > will be the major contributor towards funding evolt.org.
>
> Ya see, but:  *this* point kinda slipped in there somehow when I
> wasn't paying attention.  So far I'm seeing a great idea, but not
> something which anyone's convincing me will be paid for.

John, It was clearely written in the letter we were all discussing:

--
MEO
* To charge a small monthly fee for this. This will balance affordability
with helping the rest of evolt.org to be financially self-sufficient, and
shouldn't be much above US$10 a month in the first instance. If we got 50
accounts, this could fund evolt.org *entirely*.
--

It was discussed and agreed upon by the steering group, later, it was also
presented to theforum and the point wasn't questioned there either.

> So until I hear an explanation, -1 on that amend, sorry.  I'll bore
> you momentarily with why:
>
> I have this test I use with clients who say they've got Idea X  for a
> website and they'll be charging for membership.  It's called the 'would
> you do this test'.  Early on with ABCtales.com the founders tried this
> on, got the 'Test Question' and said 'why yes, of course we would'.
> And then they got the follow-up question:  "Really? How many site
> memberships do you pay for now, porn excluded?"
>
> Bzzzt.
>
> Charge for entry to evolters.org at this time, it will fail.  Charge for
> entry to *any* site whose features, let alone benefits, are undecided,
> and it too will fail.  So far I'm seeing nothing that our 'core' users
> don't already have in spades.
>
> Again, I want to see evolters.  But I don't think it's wise to confuse
> donations (possible) with sales of a product nobody will buy (forget it).

I understand your point, you should have brought it up previously.

Do we really want to discuss this all over again, or is it just a -1 among many
+1s?

-

".jeff" wrote:

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > From: John Handelaar
> >
> > eouk is paid for by (iirc) 4 people.  Are there really
> > not 8 people out of our thousands who would do the same?
> > And - here's the one I absolutely cannot understand -
> > why the feck haven't we *asked* them?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

We've been pushong for donations for several months now, Isn't that clear enough
that we need cash from our members?

> fwiw, i have a box that's plenty capable of handling weo, beo (new), and
> teo.  i've offered to take it free of charge in the recent past and gotten
> nowhere with my offer.

Wow, I missed that one. I really don't know waht to say at this moment,  can't
understand how it was missed by all of us during the hosting discussions.