Received: from localhost ([::1]:52924 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1apgEk-0001tP-Rt; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:06:58 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:33013) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1apgEd-0001sp-3f for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:06:55 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k1so224397462vkb.0 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:06:50 -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=qEYXxbJWwTkjXBUXzUA3lDrtTKgYGt5DVrvj1AIG8r4=; b=MXwsxiWkqu6dzVAhlaKrcfmjdTLG6s8OXYRFvnNdS4poUfO+Om7i6iAG2hqL7DAWmC RTKcvwMtCJlTCGxPSaq/9CPOCcxReFqzruSaMG+AsCvQCbdLnXSad6aEkeHFuXuB/t26 flAc/yM3D7xNL055rizUjx1zrkSln7+Cynk9duJFcGArH8Mg/2OzGwu6KUDvhJ3Zjgrz 7rWuFfFQHH+jvdqjaKYdW3TmlN5I/yX3YoSsfIPlWmPWLGRyLQx+fEYAcy3oMI3+7hO9 elrGhcNW33z9A5bGRLW6G+WhGaKPx2evI5ioj2mtxBWZR6zhVg5v43R46G6Za6tdYn1V 94cg== 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=qEYXxbJWwTkjXBUXzUA3lDrtTKgYGt5DVrvj1AIG8r4=; b=EhadqyESEqMxNtP8vH++YBDWzANNPw+vuupdKb4SsR8N6wJC4Jzy5AT8gaRSwds8T9 ypU+0STfRkSGvTGtw+kGgc0ZlZPgg1VKwYFtNxPnk+YMMTRc06uk0ijhGmuELI3a17vi lzpiyWmAzna2U5UngiJje0cmArdYXG0Ko/wEwPFvEHgYpQ1mYQCSh5Y4ejC4s3rxlEyq dDQmgZK3z6GHwerlAo4DErV8H4Z5JWrbALhZVdQvuH9VQ82Mkctm5G0WRNZxY67hGbLr xuA4rO3/l0sWR4A/Br03F3MC15yw+1o4xIBWxiqW4/G3jiBYoXj1AxGQrDt1AeszC174 Snyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLatFuepqkdYNN/xjef532Csnrs0Mt8eJKcyCjAc+v29LGtUo/hF398x2d3Us9tZPBcViOEfwpvV+U+rQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.159.39.9 with SMTP id a9mr10758237uaa.116.1460398004605; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.66.226 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:06:44 -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 14:06:44 -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="===============6074683802360824714==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============6074683802360824714== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c12339c4b9d550530396845 --94eb2c12339c4b9d550530396845 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. 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 ot= her 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 of > the meeting, because I don=E2=80=99t want to further prolong the meeting.= That > said, I=E2=80=99d like to encourage members to start thinking about the s= ubject > 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=99= s 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 bots 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 > with a surplus. But that won=E2=80=99t last forever. It does, however, bu= y 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 work = 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 we > 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 meeting, and return= s > 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 a= s > 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 cou= ld > establish such an award and a notion of sustaining membership at the same > time. Participation would be limited to sustaining members, and the cost = 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 me= mbership > 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 in= terest 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 topic= s > 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 ready. > > > > 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 --94eb2c12339c4b9d550530396845 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 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.

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


2016-04-11 17:54 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>:
I=E2= =80=99m definitely tuned in, but I may have left too much time for other ol= d business to be discussed. 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@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs

--94eb2c12339c4b9d550530396845-- --===============6074683802360824714== 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 --===============6074683802360824714==--