Re: Donating (was Re: Voting Members)

In response to all of the comments below, I would like to copy a comment I
made on an earlier post:

<snip>
I would, however, like to add that, although I do think the candidate
status is interesting, I do not see it as a major factor in voting because
it is clearly stated that it is not a requirement. We've had a lot of
finger-pointing about non-required issues and I think that it masks the
real issues at stake: who will be most qualified. The $ you have or have
not contributed to the Guild and the fact that you did or did not submit a
candidate profile may seem like good "quickie" measures, but as we have
seen in the discussions, are impacted by so many extenuating circumstances
(e.g., the weather, even!). I would hate for the debate to now turn into
who is better: the non-paying basic member, the paying $20 Value member
(who cannot vote) or the paying $35 Plus member (who can vote). Yipes!

Although I do not think a candidate should be elected, or not elected,
based on non-required issues such as membership status or lack of profile,
that is _my _ opinion. I am sure others may not agree and may, therefore,
vote differently (if they are eligible and choose to vote)!
<snip>

Also, I think a few of us have already addressed your "why now" questions
in previous posts.

Tanya Spain



Below are the "FOR ALL" questions.
---
>FOR ALL: What is your perception of the benefits (or lack thereof) of "paying
>dues" to the Guild?
-
>FOR ALL: However, the perception is that those candidates who have not "upped
>their membership" see it as something different than what it is. So it
>seems the
>concept needed clarity.
-
>FOR ALL: But reflecting back the attitude from the previous responses from the
>candidates to why they haven't donated, which comes down to ...
><paraphrase> for
>X dollars, what I get in exchange isn't worth it </paraphrase>. Pardon if I am
>in error on this ... but this _IS_ the attitude being received from those
>candidates who have neither volunteered nor "upped their membership".
-
>FOR ALL: Not asking for a knight in shining armour. But it is applicable, thank
>you for contributing to those lists however without the LG's those same lists
>would be filled after awhile with gossip and flames. In just about every
>mailing
>list there is a call for volunteers or for members to "up their memberships",
>why haven't you volunteered before or raised your membership?  "Why NOW?"
>is the
>question. Those lists not only needed input, they needed LG's and FAQ
>volunteers. The HWG needs financial backing to continue it's existance as well.
-
>FOR ALL: Actually that part was "vocalized' pondering of my figuring the GB's
>view.
-
>FOR ALL: It has been discussed in many messages on -ops, the strength of the
>guild, both financially and human resource-wise. And none of those discussions
>brought forth the idea of "donating" or "upping your membership" in the guild?
-
>FOR ALL: Demitrius, this is not a personal attack on you, however all of
>this is
>food for thought for the candidates who have not volunteered, nor "upped their
>membership" and is the bottom line of what every has been asking about paying
>memberships etc.: "WHY NOW?"
---

HWG: hwg-elections mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA