Received: from localhost ([::1]:52997 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1apgSe-0002P2-V6; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:21:21 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]:35401) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1apgSW-0002Ou-7s for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:21:17 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t129so138666217vkg.2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:21:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=2hJYmAAw/Wms2KaAfXkNybynVIjij1wyfLOF/AQx8pw=; b=OEmP7J22Luk0QL52iZYZmukSKF9zT50RtRk8r1UslcyNfuUM0YyO2Jsfz4qbWzx1k1 1bhVlEZKoEDjGnXmC6gEZC/GUJr/87OXGi+EDKpT9NU0bOJHydN2D4M/XWJRple6OG2J rzKV1NyRSJaAyIZjB2ynbqIeOLGuRcpIwYgtnQnIT9voWywC3+LXPiiAkDhvTk+cmfgF fVkSGeu7cLNg+8AosJ4LbND8qNjmlAt2TeNBadlA6hDmrQWQhrBBi+qesYtPEIKIyR0I vMtyraY2zuQABJode7ez1K/5EIAWBC8dyF3zjdayR6ZJ14pQYU8LVXQUm0whHrSXNkQQ Z7nQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=2hJYmAAw/Wms2KaAfXkNybynVIjij1wyfLOF/AQx8pw=; b=AaIozSrH7wAEnausnbMbhpf2BkZLhIz2q8SvpdoINRwxwU3C30QwyftWPhLZDIpTAc Ol3MUIbiCpX9ztC251DmOip5b1HYJF4zBvIrJD5fuZq0wSMQHftEVOFcvG41u6jC0o7b +ulHGs6dOgMwLt0kJzvQZhAcCtMg/98xjltRODBa1yfH8HwsZ94tHLC7tL9lp4u5zPzG ghEvZVVYGDa5UM75yBap18vRZ4H7m1w5SfkD+aRs3s9tS+uXjVzTQBmEpx44h5Y4EFNP RspO48ypyAOdnQ3xJLsfhxJlcj9Oo3CWS0rGy5bSHftfbrWFqphBVmN2H9YJR8HP1MJ9 aR7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI/cPgm7Lkc2bNCVh80yuweP7lyCAsisz7tOYFzt6gnO93s4LMGIAukyMgRbvKMDJntg81gM9PWkCSE9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.6.166 with SMTP id g35mr10946655uag.63.1460398866036; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:21:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <56FA169C.8070702@lojban.org> <57001FFF.4060601@lojban.org> <570A97D6.2010207@lojban.org> <29164749-21C9-49D5-9821-DE0A3101B51F@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:21:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Sustaining membership and sustainability X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8760248788280510511==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8760248788280510511== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c042928a4018a0530399bec --94eb2c042928a4018a0530399bec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes. But I am saying that people paying dues should not have the option of opting out. We (the body) should have the power to decide how money procured from membership is spent without such earmarks. On Apr 11, 2016 14:16, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2016-04-11 21:06 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > >> I like these ideas a lot. We should discuss them at the next meeting. >> >> I think that sustaining membership fees would be independent of >> donations. Donations might be earmarked but a membership fee would he >> contributed with the understanding that the money can be spent howsoever >> the LLG desires (for the purposes of Lojban) in return for certain >> membership benefits. >> > > But what is LLG? Isn't it us? > > > >> On Apr 11, 2016 11:03, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2016-04-11 17:54 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch : >> >>> I=E2=80=99m definitely tuned in, but I may have left too much time for = other old >>> business to be discussed. Sorry about that! >>> >>> I do not intend to raise a motion during this meeting on the topic of >>> sustaining memberships. I also hesitate to bring it up in the context o= f >>> the meeting, because I don=E2=80=99t want to further prolong the meetin= g. That >>> said, I=E2=80=99d like to encourage members to start thinking about the= subject >>> with the idea that we could revisit it next meeting. >>> >>> For a long time, LLG has not had to worry about its finances. It=E2=80= =99s been >>> a long time since the legal costs of the battle with TLI were retired, = and >>> since the upfront costs of publishing CLL were repaid. Thanks to Robin, >>> we=E2=80=99ve also benefited, for more than a decade, from donated serv= er time. The >>> servers that run the web sites, the mailing list, and the IRC bots woul= d >>> contribute substantial monthly overhead if we had to pay for them from >>> treasury funds. >>> >>> Thanks to the generosity of its authors, sales of CLL have provided LLG >>> with a surplus. But that won=E2=80=99t last forever. It does, however, = buy us time >>> to discuss the role we would like LLG to play as a financial entity >>> supporting and promoting lojban. Some recent proposals, such as >>> additional/redundant servers for the web site and annual prizes for wor= k in >>> and about lojban, would draw from treasury funds. I am interested in >>> pursuing these idea, but I think as we do, we should also discuss how w= e >>> can make them sustainable. >>> >>> One thing that we ought to consider is introducing the notion of >>> sustaining membership, as defined in LLG=E2=80=99s bylaws, but never = =E2=80=93 to my >>> knowledge =E2=80=93 exercised. >>> >>> Currently, there is only one kind of membership in LLG: Voting >>> membership. It costs nothing but participation time in the annual meeti= ng, >>> and returns the right to vote on organization business. >>> >>> Sustaining membership would introduce an annual fee, such as the $35 >>> that the Language Creation Society charges its members. If LLG were to >>> follow suit at current membership levels, for example, we could offset = more >>> than $800 of annual overhead. >>> >>> There could be an additional benefit of sustaining membership in so far >>> as it could help members to establish a tangible commitment to the >>> organization. >>> >>> The proposal to establish an annual achievement award seems to have >>> generated quite a bit of interest over the last few years. Perhaps we c= ould >>> establish such an award and a notion of sustaining membership at the sa= me >>> time. Participation would be limited to sustaining members, and the cos= t of >>> the prize or prizes would be drawn directly from membership fees. >>> >>> I=E2=80=99d also be interested in establishing a formula to adjust the >>> membership fee according to the cost of living in the countries where >>> members are resident. >>> >>> Looping back around, I do not want to raise any motion at this meeting. >>> But I hope that people consider these ideas, and if there=E2=80=99s an = interest in >>> pursuing them in earnest, that we raise them at the next meeting. >>> >> >> My view is that whoever donates money to LLG should have the right to >> specify for which activities it is to be spent. >> >> E.g. I am opposed to spending any money on physical logfest meetings >> except when those who want to organize them use their own money. >> >> >>> =E2=80=94Riley >>> noi ta=E2=80=99e me la mukti >>> >>> > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - >>> LLG wrote: >>> > >>> > On 4/2/2016 3:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: >>> >> Discussion of old business topics should continue. If no one else >>> >> proposes any discussion, mukti should proceed with his discussion of >>> >> sustaining membership. >>> > >>> > Mukti seems not to be paying attention, and no other old business >>> topics have been raised. I'm going to open the floor to New Business, >>> while continuing to permit mukti to raise his proposal if/when he is re= ady. >>> > >>> > I have over the course of the meeting mentioned several topics that >>> would be appropriate for New business, but I will let the membership >>> propose what you want to talk about first. >>> > >>> > lojbab >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Llg-members mailing list >>> > Llg-members@lojban.org >>> > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Llg-members mailing list >>> Llg-members@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c042928a4018a0530399bec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes. But I am saying that people paying dues should not have= the option of opting out. We (the body) should have the power to decide ho= w money procured from membership is spent without such earmarks.

On Apr 11, 2016 14:16, "Gleki Arxokuna"= ; <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.= com> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"ltr">

2016-04-11 21:06 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gma= il.com>:

I l= ike these ideas a lot. We should discuss them at the next meeting.

I think that sustaining membership fees would be independent= of donations. Donations might be earmarked but a membership fee would he c= ontributed with the understanding that the money can be spent howsoever the= LLG desires (for the purposes of Lojban) in return for certain membership = benefits.


But what is LLG? Isn't it= us?

=C2=A0
On Apr 11, 2016 11:03, "Gleki Arxokuna"= ; <gleki= .is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


<= div>2016-04-11 17:54 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch <<= a href=3D"mailto:shunpiker@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">shunpiker@gmail.com= >:
I=E2=80=99m definitely t= uned in, but I may have left too much time for other old business to be dis= cussed. Sorry about that!

I do not intend to raise a motion during this meeting on the topic of susta= ining memberships. I also hesitate to bring it up in the context of the mee= ting, because I don=E2=80=99t want to further prolong the meeting. That sai= d, I=E2=80=99d like to encourage members to start thinking about the subjec= t with the idea that we could revisit it next meeting.

For a long time, LLG has not had to worry about its finances. It=E2=80=99s = been a long time since the legal costs of the battle with TLI were retired,= and since the upfront costs of publishing CLL were repaid. Thanks to Robin= , we=E2=80=99ve also benefited, for more than a decade, from donated server= time. The servers that run the web sites, the mailing list, and the IRC bo= ts would contribute substantial monthly overhead if we had to pay for them = from treasury funds.

Thanks to the generosity of its authors, sales of CLL have provided LLG wit= h a surplus. But that won=E2=80=99t last forever. It does, however, buy us = time to discuss the role we would like LLG to play as a financial entity su= pporting and promoting lojban. Some recent proposals, such as additional/re= dundant servers for the web site and annual prizes for work in and about lo= jban, would draw from treasury funds. I am interested in pursuing these ide= a, but I think as we do, we should also discuss how we can make them sustai= nable.

One thing that we ought to consider is introducing the notion of sustaining= membership, as defined in LLG=E2=80=99s bylaws, but never =E2=80=93 to my = knowledge =E2=80=93 exercised.

Currently, there is only one kind of membership in LLG: Voting membership. = It costs nothing but participation time in the annual meeting, and returns = the right to vote on organization business.

Sustaining membership would introduce an annual fee, such as the $35 that t= he Language Creation Society charges its members. If LLG were to follow sui= t at current membership levels, for example, we could offset more than $800= of annual overhead.

There could be an additional benefit of sustaining membership in so far as = it could help members to establish a tangible commitment to the organizatio= n.

The proposal to establish an annual achievement award seems to have generat= ed quite a bit of interest over the last few years. Perhaps we could establ= ish such an award and a notion of sustaining membership at the same time. P= articipation would be limited to sustaining members, and the cost of the pr= ize or prizes would be drawn directly from membership fees.

I=E2=80=99d also be interested in establishing a formula to adjust the memb= ership fee according to the cost of living in the countries where members a= re resident.

Looping back around, I do not want to raise any motion at this meeting. But= I hope that people consider these ideas, and if there=E2=80=99s an interes= t in pursuing them in earnest, that we raise them at the next meeting.
<= /blockquote>

My view is that whoever donates money= to LLG should have the right to specify for which activities it is to be s= pent.

E.g. I am opposed to spending any money on p= hysical logfest meetings except when those who want to organize them use th= eir own money.


=E2=80=94Riley
noi ta=E2=80=99e me la mukti

> On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - = LLG <lojbab@lojba= n.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/2016 3:39 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Discussion of old business topics should continue.=C2=A0 If no one= else
>> proposes any discussion, mukti should proceed with his discussion = of
>> sustaining membership.
>
> Mukti seems not to be paying attention, and no other old business topi= cs have been raised.=C2=A0 I'm going to open the floor to New Business,= while continuing to permit mukti to raise his proposal if/when he is ready= .
>
> I have over the course of the meeting mentioned several topics that wo= uld be appropriate for New business, but I will let the membership propose = what you want to talk about first.
>
> lojbab
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-member= s@lojban.org
> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

--94eb2c042928a4018a0530399bec-- --===============8760248788280510511== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============8760248788280510511==--