I've been involved in a company with around 1,000 members and it found no particular difficulties with managing them. None of them were very interested in an alternative "friends" affiliation; quite a few took no interest in the AGM, but nobody ever suggested that the vanishingly small responsibilities of being a guarantor member had put them off joining (in part because the meaning of this was clearly explained on the membership form, as I believe it is on ours).
Best Wishes Mickey
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At 10:14 +0100 2/12/08, Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but certainly for the future.
Why?
Being a member of a company (and in future a member of a charity) will bring a certain responsibility, which some may find is not what they want.
A company with 1,000 members will be hard to manage. However, a company with 100 members and 1,000 friends will be much easier to keep running.
I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a "member", and I mean "member" in the technical sense of "guarantor member".
Gordo
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com///
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
2008/12/3 Mickey Conn mickey.conn@gmail.com:
I've been involved in a company with around 1,000 members and it found no particular difficulties with managing them. None of them were very interested in an alternative "friends" affiliation; quite a few took no interest in the AGM, but nobody ever suggested that the vanishingly small responsibilities of being a guarantor member had put them off joining (in part because the meaning of this was clearly explained on the membership form, as I believe it is on ours).
Yes, the responsibilities are all explained on the form (which I haven't filled in and sent of yet... oops!). Incidentally, while the responsibilities are there, the rights aren't - if and when a new version is created, it should probably mention that all members are entitled to attend and vote at AGMs and EGMs.
At 14:45 +0000 3/12/08, Mickey Conn wrote:
I've been involved in a company with around 1,000 members and it found no particular difficulties with managing them. None of them were very interested in an alternative "friends" affiliation; quite a few took no interest in the AGM, but nobody ever suggested that the vanishingly small responsibilities of being a guarantor member had put them off joining (in part because the meaning of this was clearly explained on the membership form, as I believe it is on ours).
Best Wishes Mickey
OK, I take this point!
So what did they these members do? Just pay their fees?
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org