Justin S. Leitgeb wrote: >Adam suggested earlier that we could have a schema where some members pay >extra "shares" to help members who can't afford the temporary increase in dues >that our improvements will require. I personally think that this is on the >right track, but I would rather avoid the concept of "shares" because it would >seem to be difficult to reconcile with the one member, one vote philosophy >that holds that each member is of equal value to the organization. Instead, I >would think that we could stay close to the idea that Adam had where members >who could afford it would contribute what they could to subsidize others' dues >during the transitional period. > > I'm not sure what it is that you're suggesting, but if it doesn't follow my original scheme, it probably doesn't work as well. The word "shares" might be a bad choice, but the idea is a useful one: instead of members pledging constant amounts of money per month, their choices of "share" counts make them pay equivalently to a fixed number of normal members. That way _everyone's_ monthly costs go down automatically as new members join. There's no need to monitor the current membership size to adjust your idea of a reasonable supplement amount.
>Second, there is the issue of long-term pricing changes. Just brainstorming >for a minute, would it be possible to split our pricing not into tiers, but >into "public" and "private" services? > Sounds like something that can be hard to determine objectively, would complicate administration, and would create opportunities for conflict inside the co-op.... so I would vote against it. _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
