2008/12/5 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com:
At 11:35 +0000 4/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I am sure there is some guesswork here.
And yes, I agree, WMUK must be democratic. I am trying to suggest that making every "supporting member" become a guarantor member (or become nothing) might not be the best way forward.
No-one has disagreed with that. What you're suggesting is *forcing* certain people not to become guarantor members. That is the part that is undemocratic.
I like the idea of forcing somebody *not* to do something!
You know perfectly well what I mean. Why don't you just explain why you think limiting the numbers of guarantor members is a good thing?
At 19:08 +0000 5/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/5 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com:
At 11:35 +0000 4/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I am sure there is some guesswork here.
And yes, I agree, WMUK must be democratic. I am trying to suggest that making every "supporting member" become a guarantor member (or become nothing) might not be the best way forward.
No-one has disagreed with that. What you're suggesting is *forcing* certain people not to become guarantor members. That is the part that is undemocratic.
I like the idea of forcing somebody *not* to do something!
You know perfectly well what I mean. Why don't you just explain why you think limiting the numbers of guarantor members is a good thing?
I have tried.
And at least one counter example has been given and that example showed was that the membership engaged in many different ways.
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org