Yes, I know that most everything at SH is free and that membership is not required.
The main advantage of membership is the opportunity and privilege to participate in the governance of the organization. Plus, if one applies and can convince the other members to approve, an access key can be obtained that allows 24/7/365 access to the space and equipment. I suspect that most casual and/or occasional visitors to SH will eventually want to become paying members, if they see the value in supporting the organization by paying dues. I'll be raiding the change jar and counting coins to fill a bag with the first month's dues, assuming my application survives the vote. Philip On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thursday, March 13, 2014 08:47:46 Philip P. Patnode wrote: > > I won't quibble with a monthly fee of $15 for an old one, but I think > that > > $25 per month is a fair amount for a senior member (65+) to pay. > > Yup. Just so discuss@ knows, you and I talked about that last night and > came > to the conclusion that its fair. > > > > > To put that amount in perspective, it is less than a dollar a day, not > > enough to buy a cup of coffee or a McDouble at McDs. > > > > Where else can somebody get the benefits of membership in such a unique > > organization for only 82cents a day? > > > > Members have the opportunity to engage in > > social/technical/pastime/alter-ego activity with a diverse assortment of > > educated, experienced, and talented individuals, with access to a vast > > assortment of tools and equipment, for less than the cost of a handful of > > M&Ms or two postage stamps. > > Actually all that is free :) > > > > > PPP > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Torrie Fischer > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 13, 2014 00:53:01 Craig Bergdorf wrote: > > > > I have mentioned in the past the difference in opinion in what a > > > > discount > > > > is when there is little incentive to buy. To me the discounts are > not > > > > > > high > > > > > > > enough to incentive "hey let's both be members" when, as Torrie has > > > > mentioned in the past, the only difference is a vote. What married > > > > > > couple > > > > > > > would vote two different ways?, What married couple would see this > and > > > > > > this > > > > > > > alone as something providing value? If one partner has gone the > extra > > > > > > mile > > > > > > > to financially support us what is the incentive to 'do it again'? > > > > > > Well, you're absolutely correct. > > > > > > But, honestly, if people want to throw money at us to say that they're > a > > > member, I'm all for it. > > > > > > Additionally, not every couple is attached at the hip, nor are > memberships > > > transferable between people :) > > > > > > Personally, I think the incentive is still being able to participate in > > > governance. Otherwise, you'd be relying on your partner to represent > two > > > people. > > > > > > This also isn't targeted at just married couples. I'm sure there are > folks > > > who > > > would like membership for themselves and their kids. > > > > > > > My thought on this from long ago was $50/mo covers a couple and any > kids > > > > that live with them acting as one entity in the space. This follows > > > > other > > > > organizations that do not require money to enjoy, unlike others, cell > > > > phones for example, that each member is getting direct value they > would > > > > > > not > > > > > > > have with out paying. > > > > This is asking for a little bit more because you'll have more than > just > > > > yourself here, but not too much more because you could anyway. Also, > > > > the > > > > interview process would involve the family (or couple) applying as > one > > > > person, which I think is a better way to meet. The same commitment > > > > based > > > > percentage discounts could apply keeping everything simple. > > > > > > Nope, sorry, membership isn't transferable. One person, one member. > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2014 11:56 PM, "Michael Griesacker" < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think family rates should be 10 to 15$ more per each additional > > > > > > member > > > > > > > > with no discounts for buying in advance. I'm fine with non family > > > > > group > > > > > rates as currently proposed. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2014 9:22 PM, "Omar Rassi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> No problem, that's discuss is for! To help each other. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Torrie Fischer < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >>> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 22:01:21 Seeley, Tim wrote: > > > > >>> > Would $94.50 be the rate paid by an individual paying 3 months > at > > > > > > one > > > > > > > >>> time? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > (3*35) = 105 > > > > >>> > 10% of 105 = 10.5 > > > > >>> > 105-10.5=94.5 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yeah, you're both right. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm an engineer, I swear. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > V/R > > > > >>> > Tim Seeley > > > > > > > >>> > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > > [email protected]] > > > > > > > >>> On > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Behalf Of Omar Rassi Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:36 PM > > > > >>> > To: SYN/HAK discussion list > > > > >>> > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Group discounts > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > I think your 7 month 3 people example fall in the 20% discount > if > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >>> > largest discount applies. Other than that I see no issue with > > > > >>> > this. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Being > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > able to pay dues for multiple people seem like an more > efficient > > > > >>> > > > > >>> structure > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > than having two different pricing plans (a family discount plan > > > > >>> > and > > > > >>> > > > > >>> bulk > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > membership plan). > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Torrie Fischer > > > > >>> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > > wrote: I > > > > > > > >>> want > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > to resume our previous discussions about the family discount > > > > >>> > plans. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Previous thread: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/006706.html > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > First, I agree with Andrew's suggestion that the student and > > > > >>> > senior > > > > >>> > > > > >>> rates > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > should be combined into one. $15 seems reasonable, yeah? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Second, the discount system. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > I'd like to stick with the idea of being able to buy > subscriptions > > > > > > in > > > > > > > >>> > blocks. However, I'd like to adopt a constant discount rate > based > > > > > > on > > > > > > > >>> how > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > many unique individuals are being paid for, with a disjoint > > > > > > discount > > > > > > > >>> for > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > the number of months that are bought for a single person. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Here's how I think it can be broken down for a single person: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > * 0% discount for 1 month > > > > >>> > * 10% discount for 3 or more months > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > And if it is for a whole group: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > * 15% discount for 2-6 people > > > > >>> > * 20% discount for 7 or more > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > If multiple discounts are available, the largest one will be > used. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Examples: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > * 1 person, 1 month: $35, 0% discount > > > > >>> > * 1 person, 2 months: $70, 0% discount > > > > >>> > * 1 person, 3 months: $101.5, 10% discount of $105 > > > > >>> > * 2 people, 1 month for each person: $59.50, 15% discount of > $70 > > > > >>> > * 2 people, 2 months for each person: $119, 15% discount of > $140 > > > > >>> > * 2 people, 3 months for each person: $178.50, 15% discount of > > > > >>> > $210 > > > > >>> > * 7 people, 3 months for each person: $624.75, 15% discount of > > > > >>> > $735 > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > This should be quite a bit simpler than the previous idea, and > > > > > > still > > > > > > > >>> keeps > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > with the original idea of making it easier for couples or > families > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >>> > support themselves. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Finally, I am considering developing a sliding scale for the > low > > > > >>> > income > > > > >>> > rate. I'm not too sure how that would get implemented, but > > > > > > charging a > > > > > > > >>> > percentage of membership dues based on the ability to pay > seems a > > > > > > lot > > > > > > > >>> more > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > fair than pegging everyone at $15/mo, especially since we're > all > > > > > > about > > > > > > > >>> > inclusiveness. _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> > Discuss mailing list > > > > >>> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > >>> > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> Discuss mailing list > > > > >>> [email protected] > > > > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Discuss mailing list > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
