[Theforum] meo barriers (was community vs. corporation)

[Marlene Bruce]

>marlene wrote:
>  >So this means someone can become a member, wait 30 days, submit an
>>application stating what they'll do with their site, and wallah ...
>  >they're eligible to be approved. While it is suggested, they aren't
>  >*required* to give back to the community at all.
>
>C'mon Marlene... you are completely misrepresenting that page.

Does the page not say:

"What helps your chances for a members.evolt.org account?
   *Having been a member of evolt.org for more than 30 days."

It does.

>They're "eligible" without meeting the 30 day suggestion. They just
>dont' have a
>very good chance of being approved. Equally so are the rest of the
>suggestions on that page which you didn't mention:

I said, "While it is ++++suggested++++, they aren't *required* to
give back to the community at all."

I don't see anywhere on that page where it says they're required.

>It doesn't say "you are automatically approved after having a weo account
>for 30 days".

I didn't say that either. I said they're eligible for approval.

>In fact it mentions contribution right there.

But it doesn't require contribution.

>Each of these things listed above HELPS their chances of being
>approved.

I agree, but they're not required.

Out of the ~850 people with member accounts, has anyone ever been
granted an account without having written an article, contributing to
thelist, or being recommended by another member (this last one isn't
really giving back to the community, BTW)?

>If you want to change the wording on this page, that's one thing. But,
>I've handled meo apps in the past and am doing so right now. So, I guess
>that means I know what the barrier is.

<sigh>

This isn't about changing the wording on that page. I just want
evolt.org to survive.

>  >The barrier I'm talking about is asking people to contribute back to
>>evolt.org for the service we're providing
>
>Which is exactly what it asks.

But doesn't require.

>  >contribution could take the
>  >form of either a monetary/item donation or by participating in
>  >evolt.org in a significant way (or both if a person chooses).
>
>Which is exactly how it's always been. The difference here is that we're
>considering a "mandatory donation (with exceptions, of course)"

No, we're considering asking people who use m.e.o. to give back to
evolt.org one way or another, but to give back in the end.

This is very important for you to comprehend. I'm *not* saying they
have to give us money or else, I'm saying that if they don't
contribute in other ways, they need to contribute monetarily.

>  >Why is asking people to give back a bad thing?
>
>It's not, nor has it ever been.
>
>If you want to talk about this, lets' talk about it. Quit spending the
>time wording and  misrepresenting things. Otherwise, we're back to the old
>admin, getting nothing done.

I'm not misrepresenting things. I said the page doesn't require
giving back, and it doesn't.

>Great! That is exactly what I said in once sentence. Except, Dan wasn't
>our only investor. We got parts and donations from many people, even
>those who had/have no involvement in evolt.org.

I realize that, but he was our angel investor and took care of the
lions share of our monetary need. Or am I wrong?

>  >However it would be wonderful if you could offer an alternative. Do
>>you have any ideas how we can sustain evolt without going to
>>corporate backers (and potentially compromising our unbiased,
>  >non-commercial status) and without asking our members to contribute
>>back to the organization?
>
>Why would we not ask our members to contribute? We always have.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Matt, I really truly think you
and I are on the same page. I think we're getting snagged on a couple
of minor misunderstandings, but I think we both want people to
contribute one way or another.

>Why would we not seek corporate sponsorship/donations? We always have. We
>just need to keep them like the ChiliSoft deal.

If we can succeed in keeping afloat by the end of the year by
accepting no-strings-attached corporate sponsorship/donations, by all
means go for it! But that won't probably take care of everything, and
I seriously suspect it won't take care of everything before the end
of the year. Most companies require demonstrations of a recipients
worthiness, demonstrations of the kind we don't have (a business
plan, Executives and a Board of Directors, etc.). Not to mention that
getting corporate sponsorship takes time.

That said, it's worth pursuing too!

>When did I say to not charge for meo?

I never believed you said that, nor did I indicated you said that.

>In fact, I said we feel we have
>to. I'm included in that "we." My issue is that it's being represented as
>a needed barrier, which it isn't.

So you don't think people should be required to give back in order to
get a members account?

>And it's also being represented by some
>as money that will *only* be used to keep meo alive, which it isn't.

Oh, well I don't know about other people, but I'm suggesting the
money will be used to keep all of evolt.org alive, including m.e.o.
and b.e.o..

>I'm just asking that we're clear on what we're changing here, so everyone
>on theforum knows exactly what we're doing.

I'm working hard at being clear.

>This just isn't an issue of "we need more of a barrier on meo."

Of course it's not, and I never indicated it was. We need money to
survive, and asking our members who use m.e.o. to contribute is one
way to achieve that goal.

>Just as I
>have deferred to you on financial matters because you know more about them
>than me,

I honestly don't think anyone should defer to my thoughts on
financial matters because they see me as knowing more than them. I
think most people are deferring to me because no one else has stepped
up and challenged me for the role. I'm not an expert on things
financial. I keep my own finances in good order, but I'm not an
accountant or anything. I just saw our financial management as a need
we had, and a way I could try to give back to evolt.org, and I
stepped up to the plate when Dan indicated we needed a Treasurer.
Heck, it probably *would* be good if I had some competition, but
until it happens I seem to be the default person.

>you should probably consider that I've been intimately involved
>with meo for a long time and know exactly what the barriers are and aren't
>and whether or not we need a larger one.

I completely grant that you've been intimately involved and probably
know a lot more about the everyday ins and outs of m.e.o. than I ever
will. I think the way we're missing each other's meaning here could
have to do with my use of the word barrier. I'm using it in the sense
of this page (which Martin pointed to earlier):

    A slight digression which ties back into web design questions:
    Derek Powazak in "Designing for Community" remarks that a barrier
    to entry often makes for a better community. The idea behind it
    is by placing a barrier in front of people, you weed out those
    whose interest is only casual, and those who might be there just
    to cause trouble. Also, by having to pass that barrier, the people
    in the community are more committed to making the community work.
    It's sort of like "Earnest money" in a financial transaction. Make
    the barrier too high and no one comes in, so the community fails;
    make it too low and too many come in and the community gets
    fractious and tears itself apart.

    (http://freezope2.nipltd.net/acorn/evolt/HonestMoney)

So when I say "barrier" I mean that we'll make the community a better
place by requiring our members using m.e.o. to give back either
through participation or through monetary giving.

>It's also not an issue of "meo users should be contributing to the costs
>of running the meo service that they use." In reality, they'd be paying
>for meo and carrying the other services to one extent or the
>other...

Does that fact make it wrong to ask them to give back to evolt.org
for the privilege of having a members account?

>while the people who use those other services are not required to
>contribute anything.

You're certainly right about that, but those other people aren't
getting server space and access to development tools either.

Hey Matt, if you're still unhappy with what I've written, could I
call you and talk with you about it and see if we can resolve our
cross-communication that way? I think it would help a great deal. I
don't seem to have your phone number ... would you send it to me
off-list?

Thanks,
Marlene