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 tried at the same time to propose something
* which keeps in mind that membership is meant to collect money. It is important because it is the safest and strongest and least controversial method of financing
* which is fairly simple
* which takes into account the existing community and recognition of its diversity (allowing to join less wealthy good contributors for a rather low amount)
* which allow people to indicate what they would prefer the money to be used for
* which will set relationships between local chapter and foundation.
I would like to remind editors that whether they give money or not, they are members of the Foundation. Contributing to articles, organisation, software, maintenance etc... is a great way to help. Giving money is another. If people can do both, fine. But you will still be important to us if you do not give money. Only provide what you feel like providing, time/energy or money, only time/energy, only money. You will be welcome in any cases.
I'll add to this, that members joining local chapters, will be contributing members to the foundation as well, provided that there is an agreement between the local chapter and the Foundation. Next step is to see how we can legally and technically do this :-) I have a proposal, which I shall explain tomorrow to current and future chapters.
For now, I would like you to read this membership fee proposal, and explain it to non english people please, as all languages will be concerned. I tried to be rather descriptive, to avoid misunderstandings. But I guess the proposal might be summarized in just a few lines.
Thanks for your attention :-)
Florence
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.)
-Mark
Mark wrote:
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...
There is the option of paying less if you are an active user. The minimum is $6 for those who have edited for a certain length of time. We encourage people to pay $60 if they can afford it, but if they feel they can't, they can contribute anything between $6 and $60 according to their personal financial means.
Angela.
It seems that the price should be set near the price of a decent magazine subscription, which in the US would be around USD $30 a year. That's how many public broadcasters in the US rationalize their membership drives.
Since Wikipedia is global community, another funky idea is to have market pricing, using the Economist Big Mac index. Have folks donate the equivalent of ten Big Macs. Not only does this make it a more "fun" calculation, it can showcase the global nature of the project that as a "marketplace of knowledge", it is sensitive to global market pricing. This way, American, Polish, or Chinese users can take the same "impact" on their wallets.
For the latest Big Mac index, see that chart at the bottom of: http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2708584
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:58:32 +0100, Angela_ beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Mark wrote:
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...
There is the option of paying less if you are an active user. The minimum is $6 for those who have edited for a certain length of time. We encourage people to pay $60 if they can afford it, but if they feel they can't, they can contribute anything between $6 and $60 according to their personal financial means.
Angela.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Delirium wrote:
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
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that the price should be set near the price of a decent magazine subscription, which in the US would be around USD $30 a year. That's how many public broadcasters in the US rationalize their membership drives.
We should have several different membership levels starting at $30 a year.
One possible structure:
$30 a year ($2.5/month): Standard $60 a year ($5/month): Silver $120 a year ($10/month): Gold $240 a year ($20/month): Platinum #240+ a year: Sustaining (yep, goes up a category)
And of course anybody who is active on any Wikimedia project could be a volunteer-level member by just signing-up (and maybe paying a nominal fee). A parallel discount fee structure should also exist (set it at 20% of the regular fee structure and reserve it for special cases - such as for nations where the cost of living is really low).
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs, etc). We could reach out to various businesses to ask for wampum donations (discount cards, free gifts, etc). This may complicate the discount fee structure though. Either way getting the gifts may require a separate payment for shipping. It will also be some time before we could set up such a system.
Just some ideas to chew on.
-- Daniel Mayer
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
mav wrote:
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs, etc)....
This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
Angela.
Angela_ wrote:
mav wrote:
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs, etc)....
This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who contribute at least $60 get a free mug". Legally the members would still have the same status, as just Volunteer Active members or Contributing Active members, except that we'd mail some people something and not mail other people something. Unless the bylaws explicitly prohibit giving people things based on how much they contribute, it doesn't seem particularly problematic (but, of course, IANAL).
-Mark
On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:17 PM Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Angela_ wrote:
mav wrote:
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs, etc)....
This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who contribute at least $60 get a free mug".
Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
-Arne (akl)
Arne Klempert wrote:
Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
In twenty years those mugs will be *gold* on ebay. Think of it as an investment. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Angela_ wrote:
mav wrote:
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs, etc)....
This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
I don't think that this is accurate. While specifying different voting rights is a normal element in by-laws, making that an exclusive right would be unusual. If Mav's idea were to go ahead, I'm sure that we could easily find ways around that kind of restrictions. The proposal distinguishes between levels of payment rather than whether or not there should be a payment.
Ec
Arne Klempert wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:17 PM Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who contribute at least $60 get a free mug".
Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
There's nothing wrong with mugs. They're cheap advertising. If you have a visitor serve him coffee in the Wikipedia mug (preferably a left-handed mug) With a little luck he may ask about the logo on the mug. That will be your opportunity to talk about Wikipedia in the hopes of snaring another addict.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Arne Klempert wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2004 9:17 PM Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Isn't it possible to do with just a board member vote? It's not removing any benefits, just adding something like "those who contribute at least $60 get a free mug".
Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
There's nothing wrong with mugs. They're cheap advertising. If you have a visitor serve him coffee in the Wikipedia mug (preferably a left-handed mug) With a little luck he may ask about the logo on the mug. That will be your opportunity to talk about Wikipedia in the hopes of snaring another addict.
We could try to satisfy both concerns by making the mug (or whatever) optional, which is a fairly common thing for non-profit membership organizations to do. Some people like the token "gifts" and take them, but others can check a box saying "I'd rather not have it", thus saving the foundation a bit of money.
-Mark
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that the price should be set near the price of a decent magazine subscription, which in the US would be around USD $30 a year. That's how many public broadcasters in the US rationalize their membership drives.
We should have several different membership levels starting at $30 a year.
One possible structure:
$30 a year ($2.5/month): Standard $60 a year ($5/month): Silver $120 a year ($10/month): Gold $240 a year ($20/month): Platinum #240+ a year: Sustaining (yep, goes up a category)
Why not yes.
And of course anybody who is active on any Wikimedia project could be a volunteer-level member by just signing-up (and maybe paying a nominal fee). A parallel discount fee structure should also exist (set it at 20% of the regular fee structure and reserve it for special cases - such as for nations where the cost of living is really low).
I hate to say this Mav, but I started the discussion about fees ONE month ago on meta, asking for ideas and feedback. I made my proposal based on what people offered me then, on meta, by mail, on irc.
I indicated I would draw a final proposal based on all that. I had no feedback whatsoever at that point.
I then drafted that proposal and asked feedback again. There was very little. About 10 people overall. No opposition. Essentially, comments on the amount of fees, for which I guess discussion is totally possible.
I consequently closed the proposal.
I started doing the membership application form according to that proposal.
So...I see no problem with discussing the prices, but I definitly see a problem in *entirely* rediscussing the entire organisation of a fee structure already decided.
Couple of points : * the volunteer member will NOT NOT NOT pay anything. This is not negociable. * there will not be country discount because this is too complicated * there is already a discount fee system. With the discounted amount, no side benefits such as mugs are planned.
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts, mugs, etc). We could reach out to various businesses to ask for wampum donations (discount cards, free gifts, etc). This may complicate the discount fee structure though. Either way getting the gifts may require a separate payment for shipping. It will also be some time before we could set up such a system.
Just some ideas to chew on.
-- Daniel Mayer
All discussions on side benefits are welcome and great. And yes, they do not impair setting the structure as is.
ant
Brion Vibber wrote:
Arne Klempert wrote:
Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion. People will become a member because they want to support fantastic projects and/or because they want to be part of a great global movement. IMHO this is more than enough - no need to add a - in proportion to this - very poor free mug.
In twenty years those mugs will be *gold* on ebay. Think of it as an investment. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Correct.... we should think of adding something on all these items to distinguish generation. We could have a mug with ''1 000 000 pages'' written below
Or "Wikipédia, déjà 10 ans"
--- Angela_ beesley@gmail.com wrote:
mav wrote:
Going up each level should also mean the person gets more wampum (shirts,
mugs, etc)....
This would require a change in the bylaws. Currently the only difference allowed between Volunteer Active members (who don't pay at all) and Contributing Active members is the entitlement to vote for the Contributing Member Representative in the next elections.
Why in the world would it? Nothing I said would be contradictory to the bylaws since they only speak of voting rights in this area. And everybody who contributes $30 a year will be able to vote for contributing and volunteer reps and volunteer members would be able to to vote for the volunteer rep. Nothing has changed.
And by-laws, btw, are supposed to be skeletal. Therefore when they are silent on an issue they do not preclude any action in that area. This is also beside the fact that the bylaws have not even legal yet - the signatures of a majority of the board are needed. Thus changes will be easy. That is, unless things have changed from two months ago when Jimbo mentioned that.
--mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org