I've been involved in a company with around 1,000 members and it found no particular difficulties with managing them. None of them were very interested in an alternative "friends" affiliation; quite a few took no interest in the AGM, but nobody ever suggested that the vanishingly small responsibilities of being a guarantor member had put them off joining (in part because the meaning of this was clearly explained on the membership form, as I believe it is on ours).
Best Wishes Mickey On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:14 +0100 2/12/08, Michael Bimmler wrote: >>On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but >>> certainly for the future. >>> >> >>Why? >> > > Being a member of a company (and in future a member of a charity) > will bring a certain responsibility, which some may find is not what > they want. > > A company with 1,000 members will be hard to manage. However, a > company with 100 members and 1,000 friends will be much easier to > keep running. > > I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a > "member", and I mean "member" in the technical sense of "guarantor > member". > > Gordo > > -- > "Think Feynman"///////// > http://pobox.com/~gordo/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
