On 28 June 2013 20:52, <fabian(a)unpopular.org.uk> wrote:
* As long as there are enough people to maintain WMUK, why do we need to
worry about recruitment? And if there are not enough people, then perhaps
there is no need for WMUK?
False dichotomy? There is room for concern about the narrow base of the
I am really keen that we have a small membership cost
(£5 is good) and
that this simply empowers the member to vote at AGMs etc. Adding other
features is likely to have a financial impact leading some to call for a
rise in the membership fee to cover services which not everyone may feel
are useful or even suitable.
An accountancy exercise could be added to the "stakeholder" exercise. The
figure of £5 was of course plucked out of the air in early 2010, before any
such financial calculation could be made. It is worth pointing out that
recruiting new members brings economies of scale in the basic admin cost
(automated mailings). In the past I have thought that a low membership of
100ish meant that the fees didn't actually cover that cost.