On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 00:41 +0000, River Tarnell wrote:
Brian McNeil:
And this is an argument for what, exactly?
No argument; I'm merely pointing out that a direct comparison between WM-UK and the NT might be misleading, since their fundraising methods and goals are quite different.
There seems to be little to no 'goals' to WMUK fundraising at the moment. Well, at least beyond getting the organisation stable and passing funds on the the WMF itself.
You trimmed all the positive points I made to denigrate the proposal by insinuating I'm advocating sky-high membership fees.
I was suggesting where we might seek to get members' benefits - and make it worth paying a slightly more respectable amount. To have the money to do so you can't set membership below the price of two pints of beer.
I've read my post again, and I really can't see how you came to this conclusion. I trimmed the rest of your post because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I insinuated nothing. I have expressed no opinion on either side of the discussion, so I have no reason to do so.
In fact, in the very text I quoted, you indicated that you found the NT membership fee to be "a little steep". I find it unlikely that someone would read this text and come to the conclusion that you believe WM-UK should charge as much for membership.
I was not suggesting WMUK charge as much as the National Trust, no. This was where I was concerned that suggestions for member benefits to go after was dismissed.
PS: "Assume good faith" might be a little trite, but it's not a bad idea.
I've always regarded that as Wikipedia-specific; where you can debate into old age over the content of the project.