[nettime-lat] Fw: Your Rhizome.org membership has just expired

["||| | |||||| | ||| ||||" <vibri@internet.com.uy>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rhizome.org" <registration@rhizome.org>
To: "Brian Mackern" <vibri@internet.com.uy>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: Your Rhizome.org membership has just expired


> Hi Brian,
>
> Your Rhizome.org membership has just expired. :-(
>
> Please  renew your one-year membership now by making a contribution of
> $5 or more. As usual, we offer cool thank-you gifts for contributions of
> $10 or more.
>
> We accept contributions online via secure credit card transaction or
> PayPal at http://rhizome.org/support.
>
> We also accept checks, money orders or cash mailed to Rhizome.org,  180
> Varick Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10014.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The Rhizome Crew
>
> + + +
>
> Rhizome.org is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. For U.S.
> taxpayers, contributions to Rhizome are tax-deductible, minus the value
> of any goods or services received, to the extent allowed by law.
>

bueno, bueno.
nada que agregar a la excelente respuesta de m e t a.
tambien recomiendo leer la reflexion de don cameron para nettime
(adjuntos abajo de este msg)

tal vez agregar que aca en el sur ganar 5 dolares se ha convertido en todo
un triunfo
(aparte del tema etico del que hablabamos...hace cuanto?? unos meses??
ver el thread en esta lista sobre comisariados y etceteras).

y que leer http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
es, por decirlo de alguna manera... obsceno.

> Your Rhizome.org membership has just expired. :-(

y ya saben lo que pueden ir haciendo con ese emoticon!
es esto una burla?
( :P !!!

encima que les damos el contenido (y desde hace cuanto? 5 años?)
nos vienen a manguear?

nada mas.
saludos!


_bri

--------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "m e t a" <meta@meta.am>
To: <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:30 AM
Subject: <nettime> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left


> At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
>
> >
> >this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
organization. nobody is getting rich.
>
> 'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.
>
> you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
>
> alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
>
> http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
>
>
> i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.
>
>
> >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.
>
> sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.
>
> everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay
yourself
> $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.
>
> this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of festivals
and
> shows and artworks, those whose writings are included in the digest...
>
> and here's a novel concept :
>
> perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff that the
> entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could actually see
some
> of that money.
>
> perhaps the money collected from the community
> could actually be put back into the community itself
> in the form of direct financial support for the artists.
>
> perhaps one modest commission a month,
> or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.
>
> ... instead of :
>
> rhizomes office space, - $10,176
> rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
> rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
> rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
> etc.
>
>
> your .org has become bloated.
>
> you have a number of things generating considerable expense
> that are providing little or no benefit to the majority of the list
members.
>
> in addition - you are asking for us to pay for them
> while providing no financial support for those generating the very content
> that IS of benefit to the majority of the list members.
>
> that is not survival, it is exploitation.
>
>
> sorry - before you receive a dime from me,
> i need to know that my money is going to be spent much more wisely
> and distributed much more fairly.
>
>
> >i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me
directly if
> your membership gets suspended.
>
> cute.
>
>
>
> //m
> 127.0.0.1
>
> http://meta.am/
> 216.71.65.73


--------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cameron" <donhome@mudgeeab.com.au>
To: <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left


> Being the first to acknowledge how little I know of Rhizome or any of the
> underlying issues behind this recent spate of posts; the scenario of an
NFP
> seeking financial contributions from volunteer contributors has been
> replicated many times in the past (and by a great number of NFP's), almost
> always to their peril and subsequent ruin.
>
> The psychology underlying volunteer contributions is extremely complex and
> contains one acknowledged oddity of enormous value to NFP's... volunteers
> rarely calculate the value of non monetary contributions until such time
as
> a request is made for direct financial contribution. A great many
volunteers
> donate hundreds or even thousands of hours of time per year; donate goods
> and services of a very high value; provide skills and expertise that at
> consultancy rates would bankrupt most NFP's within days... yet when asked
to
> open their wallets... will baulk, react, and cite a great many reasons why
> they now feel they are being 'ripped-off' by the very NFP they have chosen
> to support through the free provision of high value goods and services.
This
> usually leads to volunteers abandoning the NFP in preference for another
> entity that perhaps places higher values on non-forced volunteer
> contributions.
>
> >From a volunteer management perspective; the key to this is understanding
> and acknowledging that volunteers will contribute whilst ever they do not
> feel compelled to do so (volunteerism is not salaried employment).
Demanding
> that volunteers make a financial contribution, even as little as $5.00, is
> to damage the very ethos that drives volunteerism. Volunteers will not
> contribute when they feel compelled to do so.
>
> My suggestion to Rhizome is to firstly conduct a true and proper valuation
> of volunteer contributions (so you know exactly what value these people
> bring to your organisation), and to then assess the potential loss you
will
> experience as a result of this policy - Such an analysis should consider
> that losses will be more than just monetary; the organisations reputation
is
> already clearly suffering (I doubt that I would support any organisation
who
> treats its volunteers in this manner). Obviously all of this should be
> weighed against the value of income brought about through charging each
> remaining volunteer $5.00 per head.
>
> This is always an onerous and costly process for everyone involved...
would
> it not be better to seek other methods of achieving financial
> sustainability?
>
> Best rgds, Don
>


_______________________________________________
Nettime-lat mailing list
Nettime-lat@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-lat