At 12:07 AM 1/16/2003 +0000, - G a r r e t t - wrote:
>seeing as for the last few days i've been trying to participate in the
>discussion over that $5 and the rhizome artbase and i've (for reasons
>unknown) been excluded from posting to rhizome raw,

i have no idea why your posts haven't gone through. must be a technical glitch.

>also been denied the respect of a response from rhizome management,

if you haven't received a response from someone at rhizome, it's either
because nobody received it (perhaps for the same reason your posts haven't
reached raw) or because we simply haven't had time yet. alexis is the one
who gets info@rhizome.org, and she has been deluged with email and with
contributions lately.

>i have now decided to unsubscribe to rhizome raw (the supposedly
>unmoderated list)

raw is definitely unmoderated (much to the chagrin of many subscribers)

>and would like to contribute this to the discussion.
>if this is your idea of community rhizome then stuff you and your artbase,
>i'm not usually this impolite but then when i post to a list i usually
>ether see the post or get a reason as to why the post was not submitted,
>nether of which i have recieved.
>a-
>gar
>--
>+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>
>Garrett@asquare.org
>http://www.asquare.org/
>http://www.bannerart.org/
>http://www.zendco.com/
>http://rhizome.org/member.rhiz?user_id00113
>
>+-----------------------------------------------------------+

At 04:35 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, Are Flagan wrote:
>I have only two
>words and an adjective that may help rhizome flourish in its paid
>community-building phase and none of them have directly to do with the $
>breakdown: complete openness and transparency.

good words.

see http://rhizome.org/financials

At 12:35 AM 1/15/2003 +0000, atty wrote:
>hey
>
>this story on the front of rhizome at the moment "DEBT FREE WITH SITE
>AND SASS"
>
>seems like a kind of middle america, 'ain't the internet weird' kind of
>a story but also misses something a bit more polished from within
>'rhizome community' when one38 sold his 'hate' on ebay (but then as I
>remember it he got cold feet)
>
>but more to the point in some ways
>
>I am about to stump up my $5 for rhizome (which I don't know how much
>more the bank charge me to change to $.

hi atty

the bank won't charge you if you pay via paypal--just pay the equivalent in
euros

>I think rhizome might have
>considered paying this cost themselves considering I assume as a whole
>the $ carrying membership is the better off portion of the membership,
>at least when paying in dollars) despite the fact this is 15% of funds I
>currently have to cover the next week
>
>I would like to know it is money well spent

the money is definitely well spent, but you can see for yourself at
http://rhizome.org/financials

>at the moment the rhizome search engine seems shot to pieces, can't even
>find rhizome's own splash page collection. Try for instance where the
>non-virtual show was once
>http://rhizome.org/query.rhiz?words=splash+rhizome+New+Museum+of+Contemporary+Art
>. Certain of the pieces made seem to be in art-base but not others, even
>those inside seem to have broken internal links. Those of us who
>contributed I guess would hope they haven't actually been lost (just
>mislaid?)

i totally agree that the seach engine doesn't work and that fixing it needs
to be a top priority. we are still in survival mode--francis has been
focusing most if his time recently on back-end stuff relating to the new
membership policy. it's a lot more complicated that you might think.

>that's what I mean by 'memory' and leadership of rhizome has to realise
>if we pays our money on the basis this is 'net-art' community forum,
>discussion and memory place of community (art-base et al), its beholding
>not to loose things like this, even if only temporarily. Ain't no point
>in having a memory/archive if it can't be accessed as I am sure any good
>museo curator will remark

fyi, the commissions are still available via the regular navigation bar:
click on the art+text drop-down--it's at the bottom of the list

>laters
>atty
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> 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

At 10:34 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
>At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, info@rhizome.org wrote:
> >Hi Meta:
> >
> >This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
> >Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
> >renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
>
>i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
>
>1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
>
>2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
>weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
>
>3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website
>are compensated as well.

if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we would have to be much
more selective.

>my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
>it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
>or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.

when we were figuring out the new membership policy, we considered giving
free memberships to people who contribute to artbase, digest, etc. my take
on it was that people get as much value from posting as they do from
accessing the content. unlike print, net-based platforms like rhizome are
all about many-to-many communication. we have many more contributors than
say a book or a print journal, so giving away free memberships to those who
post would reduce our paid membership significantly. i also didn't like the
idea of dividing the community into people who post and get free membership
and those who don't post and have to pay. but maybe it makes sense.

these are, to say the least, very difficult decisions. $5 per year is
really very low for most people. less than the cost of a print magazine,
for example.

>this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
>regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.

this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
organization. nobody is getting rich.

that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free
memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.

i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly
if your membership gets suspended.

yup, great ideas

At 06:12 PM 1/14/2003 -0500, Daniel Young wrote:
>I like Dyske's 2 cents,i.e.,"bookmarking" (which I take to be a sort of
>voting) and "volunteer curators." I guess the former would be like the
>buyer rating/opinions you can get on some commercial sites. As for the
>latter, if somebody whose judgment I came to respect had the time and
>energy to make recommendations I would be grateful.
>
>For a bookmarking or voting system I would require voters to identify
>themselves and give some reason or reasons. That would have the multiple
>benefits of preventing artificial inflation of the vote and also give
>people some idea of what standards of judgment are being used in the
>recommendation.
>
>Needless to say, curators would be required to give some rationale for
>their preferences. And that too might contribute to the development of
>genuine critical discourse in this area.
>
>In all these methods, I would give the artist the right of reply (with
>some reasonable word limitation).
>
>Daniel Young
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> 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