Anthere wrote:
The proposal is available at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees.
This proposal was set based on discussions with many editors, on
meta, on irc, by email. Though it is probably not perfect, I believe
it is a fair proposal trying to take into consideration all comments
made.
I haven't followed most of the discussions, so this is just a first
impression, but a fee of $60 seemed a little bit steep, so it
surprised me when I first saw it. I'm not sure it's actually a bad
idea, but it was a bit surprising. I'm not 100% sure, but I think
it's more common to have a somewhat lower minimum membership fee, and
then have higher levels with additional mini-benefits for those who
can afford them. Of course, part of that is my personal budgeting: I
can see myself buying a $20-$30 membership right now without too much
thought, but a $60 one would require a bit more consideration, and I
might end up just not joining at all if there's no intermediate $30
option. If that's something that a lot of other people would also do,
that could be a problem. (Of course, it might also be balanced by
some people who maybe would've only given $30 but are now encouraged
to give $60, so I'm not sure which one results in the foundation
raising more money overall.)
No organization should depend on membership fees as a major revenue
source. If memberships produce a small net income over the cost of
administration we should be happy. What we would probably want from
memberships is the sense of commitment that tells us that these people
are here for the longer term. When membership fees are kept low, it
gives us a pool of people who can be asked to contribute when needed.
Those members may be more generous when asked.
Ec