daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

Right now, it seems that the membership model is so inclusive, it seems more reasonable to ask who is *not* a member?

This is not so unreasonable a question. Plenty of people contact us daily about advertising with us, or using us as a place to add links to their sites. Just Friday I got a call from a PR firm that suggested we pay them to add content about all of their clients. Are they "members"?

Asking you to make the edits is not editing. Is a corporaion itself capable of editing, and thereby becoming a member? It seems that only individuals are able to edit.

(Note that other PR firms have been making edits and complaining if they are reverted. Are they members too?)

I guess they could be.

Willie on Wheels has thousands of "edits." Is he a member?

Why not? His thousands of edits would still only give him one vote. People of that caliber are still a tiny minority. There is less agony to marginalizing their effects than to putting enormous effort into weeding them out.

Some of the most active members on this list make very few real content edits. Are they members?

Membership in any organization implies a certain level of responsibility. By granting membership--and with it, the right to vote--we are allowing people to determine the future direction of the organization. It seems that this would necessitate something more than just goodwill, presence, or a vested interest in the course of the foundation.

The proposed changes would strenghthen the hand of only those with a vested interest, and not the others.

Ec