Re: Membership fee?
i'll pay. although i think the sliding scale should be based on where one
lives. americans and west europeans should pay more while folks from less
affluent regions should pay less (or free).
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Membership fee?
> Hi Rhizomers:
>
> I am hoping to start a discussion here on Raw about Rhizome's financial
> situation and a possible solution. This email is rather long, but I'd
> appreciate it if you'd take the time to read it through, give it some
> thought, and let me know what you think.
>
> First, some background information. It will cost about $400,000 to operate
> Rhizome.org this year. Here's how we spend it: $6,000 on administrative
> fees (mostly processing credit card gifts); $122,000 on operating expenses
> (phone, rent, web hosting, office supplies, etc.); $177,000 on payroll
> costs (salaries, health insurance, payroll taxes, etc.); $93,000 on
> professional fees (writers, commissions, consultants, etc.). These numbers
> may seem high to some of you, but we actually run a very lean, efficient
> operation. It simply costs a lot of money to run a nonprofit organization
> that offers as many programs to as many people as we do.
>
> In the past, most of our revenue has come from foundations, but foundation
> support is shrinking. We had hoped to make up the difference through
earned
> income from web hosting and online education, but those services are
> getting off to a slow start. We have also, as you surely know, tried
asking
> for voluntary contributions. But so far this year only about 1% of our
> 19,000 members have made gifts.
>
> The Rhizome Board of Directors met for its quarterly meeting last Friday.
> The main topic was how to solve our financial problems. I proposed putting
> the organization into hibernation mode. This would entail shutting down
the
> office, laying off the staff and discontinuing most of our programs. We
> would keep the web site up, ask the SuperUsers to continue to publish
> texts, and keep Raw online. But everything else would stop: no more Digest
> or Net Art News, no more commissions, no more events. We'd stop adding new
> projects to the ArtBase, stop improving the web site (we have a long list
> of bugs to fix and features to add) and stop planning new programs.
>
> The Board felt that hibernation would be a big mistake. Once we went into
> hibernation, they argued, it would be very hard to re-emerge and rebuild
> momentum. Foundations would lose confidence in us (not to mention the fact
> that we wouldn't have anyone to write the grants). Most important, our
> ability to fulfill our mission would be compromised.
>
> Then someone suggested charging a membership fee. This idea has been
> proposed before, and I have always opposed it. Rhizome is for everyone, I
> argued, not just for those who can afford it. I argued that we'd lose
> thousands of members and that our community would become less diverse.
>
> Then we looked at the numbers. The gap between our expenses and what we
can
> raise from foundations, the government, earned income and other sources is
> about $100,000. That's about $5 per member. If every member gave $5,
> Rhizome would be financially stable. We could continue to grow and serve
> the community.
>
> The board argued that we pay to subscribe to magazines, to enter museums
> and to see performances. We pay to attend festivals and conferences. Why
> shouldn't we pay for Rhizome? Because it's online?
>
> Consider this hypothetical scenario. Let's say we introduced a
> sliding-scale membership fee starting at $11 per year with "thank you
> gifts" (T-shirts, etc.) at higher levels. By paying $11 a year (or more if
> you could afford it), you get access to everything: Raw, Rare, Digest, Net
> Art News, the Calendar, Opportunity Listings, ArtBase, Commissions, etc.
> Maybe we'd keep Raw free. Maybe we'd give new memebers a free trial period
> so they could check out the goods before they have to pay.
>
> Would you pay the fee?
>
> What do you think about the idea of a sliding-scale membership fee for
> Rhizome.org? Good idea? Bad idea?
>
> Do you think it would be better to go into hibernation?
>
> I am eagerly awaiting your responses.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark
>
> + new media rugby
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
lives. americans and west europeans should pay more while folks from less
affluent regions should pay less (or free).
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Membership fee?
> Hi Rhizomers:
>
> I am hoping to start a discussion here on Raw about Rhizome's financial
> situation and a possible solution. This email is rather long, but I'd
> appreciate it if you'd take the time to read it through, give it some
> thought, and let me know what you think.
>
> First, some background information. It will cost about $400,000 to operate
> Rhizome.org this year. Here's how we spend it: $6,000 on administrative
> fees (mostly processing credit card gifts); $122,000 on operating expenses
> (phone, rent, web hosting, office supplies, etc.); $177,000 on payroll
> costs (salaries, health insurance, payroll taxes, etc.); $93,000 on
> professional fees (writers, commissions, consultants, etc.). These numbers
> may seem high to some of you, but we actually run a very lean, efficient
> operation. It simply costs a lot of money to run a nonprofit organization
> that offers as many programs to as many people as we do.
>
> In the past, most of our revenue has come from foundations, but foundation
> support is shrinking. We had hoped to make up the difference through
earned
> income from web hosting and online education, but those services are
> getting off to a slow start. We have also, as you surely know, tried
asking
> for voluntary contributions. But so far this year only about 1% of our
> 19,000 members have made gifts.
>
> The Rhizome Board of Directors met for its quarterly meeting last Friday.
> The main topic was how to solve our financial problems. I proposed putting
> the organization into hibernation mode. This would entail shutting down
the
> office, laying off the staff and discontinuing most of our programs. We
> would keep the web site up, ask the SuperUsers to continue to publish
> texts, and keep Raw online. But everything else would stop: no more Digest
> or Net Art News, no more commissions, no more events. We'd stop adding new
> projects to the ArtBase, stop improving the web site (we have a long list
> of bugs to fix and features to add) and stop planning new programs.
>
> The Board felt that hibernation would be a big mistake. Once we went into
> hibernation, they argued, it would be very hard to re-emerge and rebuild
> momentum. Foundations would lose confidence in us (not to mention the fact
> that we wouldn't have anyone to write the grants). Most important, our
> ability to fulfill our mission would be compromised.
>
> Then someone suggested charging a membership fee. This idea has been
> proposed before, and I have always opposed it. Rhizome is for everyone, I
> argued, not just for those who can afford it. I argued that we'd lose
> thousands of members and that our community would become less diverse.
>
> Then we looked at the numbers. The gap between our expenses and what we
can
> raise from foundations, the government, earned income and other sources is
> about $100,000. That's about $5 per member. If every member gave $5,
> Rhizome would be financially stable. We could continue to grow and serve
> the community.
>
> The board argued that we pay to subscribe to magazines, to enter museums
> and to see performances. We pay to attend festivals and conferences. Why
> shouldn't we pay for Rhizome? Because it's online?
>
> Consider this hypothetical scenario. Let's say we introduced a
> sliding-scale membership fee starting at $11 per year with "thank you
> gifts" (T-shirts, etc.) at higher levels. By paying $11 a year (or more if
> you could afford it), you get access to everything: Raw, Rare, Digest, Net
> Art News, the Calendar, Opportunity Listings, ArtBase, Commissions, etc.
> Maybe we'd keep Raw free. Maybe we'd give new memebers a free trial period
> so they could check out the goods before they have to pay.
>
> Would you pay the fee?
>
> What do you think about the idea of a sliding-scale membership fee for
> Rhizome.org? Good idea? Bad idea?
>
> Do you think it would be better to go into hibernation?
>
> I am eagerly awaiting your responses.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark
>
> + new media rugby
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
more evidence of big brother
Hollywood Petitions Fortune 1,000 Companies to Patrol File-Sharing
Washington -- Entertainment companies sent a letter to the CEO of every
Fortune 1,000 company this week, asking them to "take whatever steps
necessary to ensure that their networks are not being misused to infringe
copyrighted works." The letter, jointly signed by the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers' Association
(NMPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the
Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), targets the use of file-sharing
networks like Kazaa and Gnutella in the workplace, where employees
typically have access to high-speed Internet connections. Several of the
same groups sent a similar letter to colleges and universities, asking
them to patrol their networks for copyright infringements and educate
students about file-sharing.
http://www.riaa.org/PR_story.cfm?id=580
http://www.riaa.com/pdf/Corporate%20Outreach.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1=
628794
_____________________________________________
Washington -- Entertainment companies sent a letter to the CEO of every
Fortune 1,000 company this week, asking them to "take whatever steps
necessary to ensure that their networks are not being misused to infringe
copyrighted works." The letter, jointly signed by the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers' Association
(NMPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the
Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), targets the use of file-sharing
networks like Kazaa and Gnutella in the workplace, where employees
typically have access to high-speed Internet connections. Several of the
same groups sent a similar letter to colleges and universities, asking
them to patrol their networks for copyright infringements and educate
students about file-sharing.
http://www.riaa.org/PR_story.cfm?id=580
http://www.riaa.com/pdf/Corporate%20Outreach.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1=
628794
_____________________________________________
Re: big brother is coming
i am not responding to "faces". i don't hate corporations (in fact, i run
one).
but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
inhibit free speech (free expression). many people associate "big brother"
with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst "big
brother".
when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
principles that i believe in ... then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.
i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.
you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".
what's even worse ... is that you hammer someone for trying change a piece
of the socio-economic "reality".
people dictate reality and i, unlike you, am a person. therefore i can
affect reality. you cannot.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <david@personify.tv>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: big brother is coming
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> Some cheap propagandist
> ape-in-state-of-stupor-and-unable-to-handle-reality reposted schlock.
>
> Still on about how it's all right to punch people in the face if ya don't
> like them? Faces, masks, corporate trademarks / brands are 'faces' you
> know.
>
>
>
>
one).
but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
inhibit free speech (free expression). many people associate "big brother"
with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst "big
brother".
when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
principles that i believe in ... then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.
i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.
you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".
what's even worse ... is that you hammer someone for trying change a piece
of the socio-economic "reality".
people dictate reality and i, unlike you, am a person. therefore i can
affect reality. you cannot.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <david@personify.tv>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: big brother is coming
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> Some cheap propagandist
> ape-in-state-of-stupor-and-unable-to-handle-reality reposted schlock.
>
> Still on about how it's all right to punch people in the face if ya don't
> like them? Faces, masks, corporate trademarks / brands are 'faces' you
> know.
>
>
>
>
Re: big brother is coming
i fight without anger
i take action without anger
i occassionally respond to your [online persona] with anger because it is a
presumptuous asshole
your continued mis-intrepretations have encouraged me to
create a special language just for you. read carefully.
david goldschmidt
> > i am not responding to "faces".
>
> You are.
dfghsfghsghsfghsgf
>
> > i don't hate corporations (in fact, i run one).
>
> Never implied that you hated. Only your impotence.
>
> > but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
> > inhibit free speech (free expression).
>
> Yes, especially if those policies inhibit you from punching other
> entities faces.
sghsghfsghsgfhsghsghsghgfshsgh
>
> > many people associate "big brother"
> > with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst
"big
> > brother".
>
> There is no big brother.
>
> > when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
> > principles that i believe in
>
> You don't believe nor do you have principles.
> You simply use big words to justify what you do.
> And you're not alone.
sdhfsdhkmj;lkm;dmagfh;kmdsh
>
> >... then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.
>
> I'm all for fighting back. But you're not fighting back.
> You're allowing yourself to be programmed, pushed about
> and lash out / wave your fists.
sdhfsdhm;ldgh;jkds;gfkh
>
>
> > i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.
>
> You cannot use the system 'against itself'.
>
> How long will it take for humans to understand that they cannot
> want what they want? (Burroughs)
>
> You can 'fight back' only if you see through, and understand.
sdgh;akjglk;'h;ksdhf;ksdgh
>
> > you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".
>
> I seem nothing of the sort. The evidence is PLENTIFUL.
> And in your case, even. Because what you want dearest, is for
> YOUR reality to dictate truth.
>
> I allow truth to dictate itself. It's not worse, and it is only
> in your IDIOCY that you attempt project your own inverted impotence
> on what I do. But that happens to humans identified with their
> reproductive organs /sexual polarity). You must project in order
> to relate on a base magnetic level.
>
>
lakdfgjlajdfg la;djfgl;adfjgh aldifjgladjfg
>
> > what's even worse ... is that you hammer someone for trying change a
piece
> > of the socio-economic "reality".
>
> I do nothing of the sort. Your myopic misinterpretations of my actions
> are your own delusions.
adf/gkaldk/fhlkanhflkdndfg
>
> > people dictate reality
>
> BAHAHAHAHA. Dictatorial ape.
> Nobody 'dictates' anything.
gjhfdlsnhd ;'lsjhd;'jh';fdh
>
> > and i, unlike you, am a person.
>
> No dearest. You're an impotent nada.
ad/lfkghlskj s';jhfd;'dsdfjh
>
> > therefore i can
> > affect reality. you cannot.
>
> No dearest, I CAN: you can pretend.
>
ad;'fhkga;dlflhk;'adkhf;ldkh;ldkhf;lsgh
i take action without anger
i occassionally respond to your [online persona] with anger because it is a
presumptuous asshole
your continued mis-intrepretations have encouraged me to
create a special language just for you. read carefully.
david goldschmidt
> > i am not responding to "faces".
>
> You are.
dfghsfghsghsfghsgf
>
> > i don't hate corporations (in fact, i run one).
>
> Never implied that you hated. Only your impotence.
>
> > but their are certain policies that i am against. especially those that
> > inhibit free speech (free expression).
>
> Yes, especially if those policies inhibit you from punching other
> entities faces.
sghsghfsghsgfhsghsghsghgfshsgh
>
> > many people associate "big brother"
> > with GOVERNMENT but that is not the case. corporations are the worst
"big
> > brother".
>
> There is no big brother.
>
> > when laws (or corporate policies) are enacted that run counter to the
> > principles that i believe in
>
> You don't believe nor do you have principles.
> You simply use big words to justify what you do.
> And you're not alone.
sdhfsdhkmj;lkm;dmagfh;kmdsh
>
> >... then yes, i speak up and try to fight back.
>
> I'm all for fighting back. But you're not fighting back.
> You're allowing yourself to be programmed, pushed about
> and lash out / wave your fists.
sdhfsdhm;ldgh;jkds;gfkh
>
>
> > i try use the system against itself to achieve the results i want.
>
> You cannot use the system 'against itself'.
>
> How long will it take for humans to understand that they cannot
> want what they want? (Burroughs)
>
> You can 'fight back' only if you see through, and understand.
sdgh;akjglk;'h;ksdhf;ksdgh
>
> > you seem to sit back and let the "reality" of others dictate "truth".
>
> I seem nothing of the sort. The evidence is PLENTIFUL.
> And in your case, even. Because what you want dearest, is for
> YOUR reality to dictate truth.
>
> I allow truth to dictate itself. It's not worse, and it is only
> in your IDIOCY that you attempt project your own inverted impotence
> on what I do. But that happens to humans identified with their
> reproductive organs /sexual polarity). You must project in order
> to relate on a base magnetic level.
>
>
lakdfgjlajdfg la;djfgl;adfjgh aldifjgladjfg
>
> > what's even worse ... is that you hammer someone for trying change a
piece
> > of the socio-economic "reality".
>
> I do nothing of the sort. Your myopic misinterpretations of my actions
> are your own delusions.
adf/gkaldk/fhlkanhflkdndfg
>
> > people dictate reality
>
> BAHAHAHAHA. Dictatorial ape.
> Nobody 'dictates' anything.
gjhfdlsnhd ;'lsjhd;'jh';fdh
>
> > and i, unlike you, am a person.
>
> No dearest. You're an impotent nada.
ad/lfkghlskj s';jhfd;'dsdfjh
>
> > therefore i can
> > affect reality. you cannot.
>
> No dearest, I CAN: you can pretend.
>
ad;'fhkga;dlflhk;'adkhf;ldkh;ldkhf;lsgh
reading comprehension
Patrick Clinton wrote,
"But they're going to need to do better, and soon: Kids today may not have =
a taste for reading novels or history for pleasure, but they can expect to =
make more use of their literacy skills than their parents or grandparents d=
id in coping with new technology, upgrading their job skills and dealing wi=
th a world that generates new knowledge at a frightening pace. In a 1999 re=
port titled "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School," the Na=
tional Research Council put it this way: "In the early part of the twentiet=
h century, education focused on the acquisition of literacy skills: simple =
reading, writing, and calculating. It was not the general rule for educatio=
nal systems to train people to think and read critically, to express themse=
lves clearly and persuasively, to solve complex problems in science and mat=
hematics. Now ... these aspects of high literacy are required of almost eve=
ryone in order to successfully negotiate the complexities of contemporary l=
ife." We can't settle for the standards of a generation ago." http://www.b=
ookmagazine.com/issue24/literacy.shtml
"But they're going to need to do better, and soon: Kids today may not have =
a taste for reading novels or history for pleasure, but they can expect to =
make more use of their literacy skills than their parents or grandparents d=
id in coping with new technology, upgrading their job skills and dealing wi=
th a world that generates new knowledge at a frightening pace. In a 1999 re=
port titled "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School," the Na=
tional Research Council put it this way: "In the early part of the twentiet=
h century, education focused on the acquisition of literacy skills: simple =
reading, writing, and calculating. It was not the general rule for educatio=
nal systems to train people to think and read critically, to express themse=
lves clearly and persuasively, to solve complex problems in science and mat=
hematics. Now ... these aspects of high literacy are required of almost eve=
ryone in order to successfully negotiate the complexities of contemporary l=
ife." We can't settle for the standards of a generation ago." http://www.b=
ookmagazine.com/issue24/literacy.shtml