If you're able to expand on "scary," I'd like to hear it. Often deficit spending is a necessary measure to stimulate. I agree with you that members have been very willing to step up to cover costs - but I think we should get to a point where the organisation is able to start helping out, but not taking over that duty.
Since we moved, we have been experiencing a period of growth. I think that is the best time to implement this theory. If we were at a steady decline or had stagnated for months with no new members, I would not recommend this. The only place we're going from here is up! :) Regardless of whether my $100 goes to a 3D printer or not, I will still donate to SkullSpace, as per the pledge I made and will follow through on. However, it's discouraging to be donating to a group that is afraid to spend when good opportunities come around - I know that if I was considering donating, and knew my money would just go "in the bank to sit," I would not be as eager to open my wallet. People just like to have an idea of how their money is actively being used - this is a practice that is very commonly used by many organisations when you donate to them. Think of "when you donate, you money actively goes to help blah in need, or blah to fix blah." SkullSpace doesn't have any text like that, people are simply asked to "donate." On 24 January 2013 14:29, Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I think that a lot of the "extra" stuff - like a $100 monthly 'project > fund', the $1350 we need for a 3d printer, etc - needs to come from the > member base, and so far the member base has been more than willing to > kick in when needed. Adding expense when we have a deficit already is > scary. > > On a related note, and for another topic, I'm thinking of putting > together something like the 'Awesome Foundation', except > SkullSpace-specific. It turns out that because of the amount we've > helped the Awesome Foundation to find members and have meeting space and > such, the other trustees think it would look bad to fund > SkullSpace-related projets, effectively kinda screwing ourselves. So > instead of being part of the actual AF, what if we bring together some > sksp members who have extra income that they're willing to invest (even > 10 people @ $20/month), and help direct that money towards a SkullSpace > project? Basically, use the same model, but for sksp? > > Sorry for kinda going on.. that's just an idea that I've been tossing > around in my head lately. > > Anyway, I'm fine with a committee to look at our budget and how we can > improve it. I'd like Jay and Mark Jenkins to both be present on it, > since they've handled a lot of the budgeting up till now. > > Ron > > On 2013-01-24 14:19, Justin Lacko wrote: > > The "official" policy of SkullSpace currently is that until we balance > our > > budget, we can't spend on anything except the basics - such as rent and > > power. This is a fiscally-conservative policy. I believe we need to still > > have nominal spending while operating at a deficit, for reasons which I > > will outline below. > > > > We are currently operating at a deficit. We can pay our bills each month > > without a problem; we have three months of rent in our coffers. But our > > monthly income is less than our expenses. The targeted fix for this > problem > > is to increase membership through whatever means available, such as > > advertising at conventions. > > > > When I worked on the plan for SkullSpace 2.0, I knew that we had to > expand > > our membership base and ask for more money. Looking back since we moved > to > > the new space at the beginning of December, we certainly have worked on > > this goal. Lately, it seems membership has again plateaued (I base this > > observation on the fact that there haven't been any recent emails from > > Courtney announcing new members). What I want to outline is that we need > to > > continue to work on getting more members if we want to eliminate our > > deficit. > > > > I think that our current fiscally-conservative spending policy is not > > beneficial to the long-term goals of SkullSpace. I believe that right now > > is the most important time to be investing SkullSpace capital into the > > space, in creative ways that will bring in new members. The constant > > reminder of "we can't spend a penny until we break even each month" is > not > > encouraging and dampens any creative thought for how SkullSpace can grow > - > > because sometimes ideas/things need money. I offer the example of our > > now-defunct monthly $100 prize to be awarded to a worthy member-nominated > > project. While we may not be able to afford $100 monthly now, we could > > bring it back at $50 each month, or a similar level. > > > > A basic projection, without knowing exact numbers, is that it will take > at > > least 6 months or more to break even with our income and expenses, with > the > > assumption that membership continues to grow. I don't think that we > should > > wait until this time before spending money. While deficit spending is a > > hotly-debated issue, it is beneficial as a means of injecting stimulus in > > order to continue growth in a stagnant economy. The current situation is > > the funding of a 3D printer for the space - much of which has graciously > > been funded by the membership. A 3D printer would arguably bring in more > > members, with the promise of using a novel machine as an added bonus to > > their membership. A $100 donation from SkullSpace hardly seems harmful, > and > > I think that we are missing an opportunity to contribute to a really good > > idea. > > > > I propose that we form a committee to assist with budgetary decisions, as > > Jay is stepping down at the next election, and make the entire process > much > > more membership-oriented. The job of treasurer for a fledgling > organisation > > is one with many duties, and understandably one person can easily get > burnt > > out with it. I would volunteer to sit on this committee. Currently, our > > funding decisions are resting with a single person, which is unfair and > > does not follow the SkullSpace mantra/rule of members having a say in the > > running of SkullSpace. > > > > I think that going-forward, SkullSpace is in a good position right now > and > > we are slowly working towards our goal of breaking even and eventually > > turning a profit. We need to continue to spend where members think it is > > necessary or else we will surely stagnate. > > > > Please respond with opinions, criticisms, rebukes, death threats, etc., > but > > I'm hoping to keep this discussion on-topic. > > > > ~Justin > > > _______________________________________________ > > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlEBmasACgkQ2t2zxlt4g/TTxQCgq27BtFyLHLN9JVoORA589WI9 > aw4AoJQxsSF3VU+zaDAPFsUrN8qVrYN+ > =HBgr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ >
_______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
