I'll throw in my two cents too. For the record, when Adam appealed for funds initially a couple weeks ago, I did what I could at the time, even though it was a measly 60 bucks or so. And I'm more than willing to invest more money into the coop during this transitional time, under whatever scheme. I just happen to be pretty broke (due to getting caught up on my student loans), and can't manage a significant amount ($100-200) until the Friday after next (5/11). If we really need funds before then I could perhaps manage $50 this week. And I think I can manage another $100 or so by the end of May if necessary.
I agree with Justin and others that we should try to set aside money each month for repairs, emergencies, etc., and think one way to facilitate this would be to standardize what a monthly share is – $4.00 for example, with the remainder being set aside, assuming our monthly costs per share resume being under $4 after the transition is finished. (On a side note, IMHO having a set share cost is also essential for marketing purposes – reading "your cost would be $4/month" is more compelling to a prospective member than reading "your cost would be under $5/month, but it varies, currently around $2/month" even if technically the latter is cheaper. Zach / za On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm going to throw in my $0.02 now... > > I DO realize that financially we're in a bad way, but I also know that > my site that I host here runs on a showstring budget also, which > allows for a max of about $5 per month in hosting costs...I see that > in last few months, my costs have been well below that due to many > more members than when I joined in Jan 2005, so making up the > difference wouldn't be that much of a problem...however, should the > costs go above that $5 a month, I might have to look elsewhere as > there could possibly be some other provider who gives me the four > things I need, which are: > > 1) Cost as decsribed > 2) Ability to execute my own CGI scripts, and have some control of who > executes them and how > 3) Reliability > 4) Easy access to "tech support" for issues related to site > > HCoop has done these in the past, and as long as it continues, I'll be > happy here...and as long as service levels that I see for my site are > the same as when I joined, any significant increase in that is really > of no use to me, so sharing in those costs could be a potential > problem for me...yes, having 150 users requires more resources than > for 50, but as long as what we are using matches that and isn't setup > to handle many more users than we'll ever have in near future, then > all is good...let's not too big and fancy until we have the users to > support it, IMHO. > > And IF there was a way to easily send $$$ without Paypal fees, then > all the more can go to HCoop! > > -- Franklin Gordon Bynum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/29/2007 09:40:57 AM, Adam Chlipala wrote: > >> With the sum that's there now, divided evenly, it would be $44.42 per >> member. Using the pledge amounts on the portal, it's minimum $24.50 >> per member. >> > > This is more than fair, especially given the massive upgrade in > service > we're about to undergo. > > >> Should I post to hcoop-announce to see who isn't willing to pay his >> pledge-based share of that total, and we can try charging everyone >> for the back-charges at pledge rates and arrange special >> subsidization for people who "can't afford" their calculated shares? >> > > Sounds good to me. Hopefully people can up their balances by the end > of this week; > > > _______________________________________________ > HCoop-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss > _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
