Re: Re: Rhizome needs to drop its membership fee and

Hi Rachael, Francis…..

Have you/we/they ever looked at the numbers(in membership terms) needed for rhizome to become a completely self funding organisation?

I suppose I am asking what amount of money would be needed to be raised for rhizome to do what it does so well, and how many members paying $5 would be needed to cover that?

Seems to me that once a critical mass is reached, all sorts of useful discussions could be had about self organising organisations and structures, as well as free memberships for those unable to pay etc.

Obviously an autonomous rhizome (what the.. would that be like!) is not feasible at the moment, but would it be something to work towards?

The difficulty I have with the current calls for rhizome to become a more accessible or fluid institution (oh yes it is) by removing the membership fee, is that it forces us all into the hands of external funding bodies, over whom we have even less control.

Perhaps it is the curse of the middle stage organisation, caught between two tensions,
firstly that it becomes the focus of our anxieties about its lack of fluidity and openess, its inability to "interface" with the other smaller or informal orgs that we work with,
secondly that it wants to modernise its structures but within the existing paradigm, that is as a formally incorporated not for profit organisation in order to best represent internetart practice in art institutional terms.

I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it would solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the latter is so much more what this whole community is about.

Best

Patrick
G9









CK SHINE wrote:

> this is an interesting issue to consider. paid members can post.unpaid
> members can consume but not post. $5.00 is a small price to pay. less
> than the cost of almost anything worth having. $5.00 mandatory fee
> does not mean there is no grassroots. $5.00 mandatory fee means that
> the paying members agree that at least some aspect of the endeavor is
> worth supporting.
>
> how many participants are listed in the community directory? rough
> estimate: 3000(?) x $5.00/year each = $15,000/year to provide network
> infrastructure and content organization/distribution? a small price to
> pay.
>
> before i discovered rhizome.org, i knew nothing of Joy Garnett's
> paintings. now i do. i may not buy her work but she is known to one
> more person who may reference her work in a conversation, article or
> catalog, etc. i'll bet Joy Garnett would be happy to fork over $5.00
> to expand her reputation to a community of 3000. let's say that maybe
> only 5% of the community has shown some interest in the aesthetic
> values of her work -excellent!
>
> for $5.00 or, the price of a tasty sandwich, a mid-day matinee, or one
> and a half hour's post-tax wage as a museum guide, one can be informed
> of Joy's artwork/ideas or engage in a stimulating conversation,
> workshop concepts, market themselves/their works and be informed of
> income opportunities in fields they are truly interested in. for 365
> days.
>
> geez, i don't know about you all but 5 bucks is a meager requirement
> to maintain and even expand the capabilities our network and all it
> has to offer.

> I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it would
> solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is
> dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the
> latter is so much more what this whole community is about.

certainly, i don't think t.whid's initial question was about "to pay or
not to pay." i think the idea is that for those of us who consider
ourselves invested in Rhizome as an activity/forum, it would be great
if it could be expanded for temporary publics that may not be
interested in Rhizome as a long term community or as a participant, but
may have short term interests (research, curiosity, etc.). This is not
a matter of whether members would/should pay for supporting something
they are part of, but is rather about WHAT members are paying for.
hence t.whid's concern about linking and the future posterity of
Rhizome as an active resource. Anyway, many arguments about logistics
and needs/desires could be made, and i'm not making any at the moment
(though those desiring feeds have my ear), but i think it's important
to not take the discussion back to the $5 argument, as i don't think
anyone is wanting to financially desert Rhizome.
best,
ryan

Hi all,

below:

On May 24, 2004, at 3:11 PM, ryan griffis wrote:

>> I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it would
>> solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is
>> dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the
>> latter is so much more what this whole community is about.
>
> certainly, i don't think t.whid's initial question was about "to pay
> or not to pay." i think the idea is that for those of us who consider
> ourselves invested in Rhizome as an activity/forum, it would be great
> if it could be expanded for temporary publics that may not be
> interested in Rhizome as a long term community or as a participant,
> but may have short term interests (research, curiosity, etc.).

Ryan is correct. I don't think the fee is evil or bad, in fact, i think
everyone should all donate by a factor of 5x the current fee (at
least).

What is bad is that it locks down the free-flow of info. By all means
have a fee with features attached that don't interfere with free
linkage.

But, as Curt pointed out, you *can* link to individual articles. I
tested this and it seems to be true (Francis please confirm). If you go
here http://x-arn.org/artnode/ you can see a list of fresh texts (click
Rhizome Fresh Texts) and you can also link to an RSS feed of these
fresh texts.

If you click on the links from the web site you go directly to the Rhiz
article whether you're logged in or not. (For some reason when
following links from my news reader I can't go directly to the article
:( i go to the log-in screen )

I was wrong, it seems anyone can link to any article and anyone can
follow those links to the articles as long as the referrer isn't
Rhizome or if the referrer doesn't exist. Is that how it works?

The problem then, isn't IF you can link to Rhiz articles, it's that
Rhiz doesn't seem to want non-members to link to Rhiz articles because
they make it hard to do so by not providing the tools (RSS feeds with
subjects/descriptions of articles).

For example, if I'm a non-member of Rhizome, how do I decide I would
like to link to an article on the home page? I see the headline, I see
a short description, but I can't read the entire thing to decide..
unless someone (other than Rhiz) provides me with a link.. or I make it
myself..

This is just kinda nutty functionality (i understand it was a
compromise): only people other than Rhiz can provide access to
non-members.

+++

or perhaps this is me just whining because I want a fully functioning
Rhizome Raw in my news reader so I can clear out my email box ;-)


> This is not a matter of whether members would/should pay for
> supporting something they are part of, but is rather about WHAT
> members are paying for. hence t.whid's concern about linking and the
> future posterity of Rhizome as an active resource. Anyway, many
> arguments about logistics and needs/desires could be made, and i'm not
> making any at the moment (though those desiring feeds have my ear),
> but i think it's important to not take the discussion back to the $5
> argument, as i don't think anyone is wanting to financially desert
> Rhizome.
> best,
> ryan
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

Hi ryan and TWhid

Why not start a new text header..called

"free linking needed to rhizome"?

And then we can have two conversations,
just not at the same time.
Best
Patrick
G9



 ?¡?rote:

> Hi all,
>
> below:
>
> On May 24, 2004, at 3:11 PM, ryan griffis wrote:
>
> >> I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it would
> >> solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is
> >> dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the
> >> latter is so much more what this whole community is about.
> >
> > certainly, i don't think t.whid's initial question was about "to
> pay
> > or not to pay." i think the idea is that for those of us who
> consider
> > ourselves invested in Rhizome as an activity/forum, it would be
> great
> > if it could be expanded for temporary publics that may not be
> > interested in Rhizome as a long term community or as a participant,
> > but may have short term interests (research, curiosity, etc.).
>
> Ryan is correct. I don't think the fee is evil or bad, in fact, i
> think
> everyone should all donate by a factor of 5x the current fee (at
> least).
>
> What is bad is that it locks down the free-flow of info. By all means
> have a fee with features attached that don't interfere with free
> linkage.
>
> But, as Curt pointed out, you *can* link to individual articles. I
> tested this and it seems to be true (Francis please confirm). If you
> go
> here http://x-arn.org/artnode/ you can see a list of fresh texts
> (click
> Rhizome Fresh Texts) and you can also link to an RSS feed of these
> fresh texts.
>
> If you click on the links from the web site you go directly to the
> Rhiz
> article whether you're logged in or not. (For some reason when
> following links from my news reader I can't go directly to the
> article
> :( i go to the log-in screen )
>
> I was wrong, it seems anyone can link to any article and anyone can
> follow those links to the articles as long as the referrer isn't
> Rhizome or if the referrer doesn't exist. Is that how it works?
>
> The problem then, isn't IF you can link to Rhiz articles, it's that
> Rhiz doesn't seem to want non-members to link to Rhiz articles
> because
> they make it hard to do so by not providing the tools (RSS feeds with
> subjects/descriptions of articles).
>
> For example, if I'm a non-member of Rhizome, how do I decide I would
> like to link to an article on the home page? I see the headline, I
> see
> a short description, but I can't read the entire thing to decide..
> unless someone (other than Rhiz) provides me with a link.. or I make
> it
> myself..
>
> This is just kinda nutty functionality (i understand it was a
> compromise): only people other than Rhiz can provide access to
> non-members.
>
> +++
>
> or perhaps this is me just whining because I want a fully functioning
> Rhizome Raw in my news reader so I can clear out my email box ;-)
>
>
> > This is not a matter of whether members would/should pay for
> > supporting something they are part of, but is rather about WHAT
> > members are paying for. hence t.whid's concern about linking and
> the
> > future posterity of Rhizome as an active resource. Anyway, many
> > arguments about logistics and needs/desires could be made, and i'm
> not
> > making any at the moment (though those desiring feeds have my ear),
> > but i think it's important to not take the discussion back to the
> $5
> > argument, as i don't think anyone is wanting to financially desert
> > Rhizome.
> > best,
> > ryan
> >
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>

Sorry Kate

This was my post in fact.

goddamn cookies

patrick


Kate Southworth wrote: (therefore did not write)

> Hi ryan and TWhid
>
> Why not start a new text header..called
>
> "free linking needed to rhizome"?
>
> And then we can have two conversations,
> just not at the same time.
> Best
> Patrick
> G9
>
>
>
>  ?¡?rote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > below:
> >
> > On May 24, 2004, at 3:11 PM, ryan griffis wrote:
> >
> > >> I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it
> would
> > >> solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is
> > >> dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the
> > >> latter is so much more what this whole community is about.
> > >
> > > certainly, i don't think t.whid's initial question was about "to
> > pay
> > > or not to pay." i think the idea is that for those of us who
> > consider
> > > ourselves invested in Rhizome as an activity/forum, it would be
> > great
> > > if it could be expanded for temporary publics that may not be
> > > interested in Rhizome as a long term community or as a
> participant,
> > > but may have short term interests (research, curiosity, etc.).
> >
> > Ryan is correct. I don't think the fee is evil or bad, in fact, i
> > think
> > everyone should all donate by a factor of 5x the current fee (at
> > least).
> >
> > What is bad is that it locks down the free-flow of info. By all
> means
> > have a fee with features attached that don't interfere with free
> > linkage.
> >
> > But, as Curt pointed out, you *can* link to individual articles. I
> > tested this and it seems to be true (Francis please confirm). If you
> > go
> > here http://x-arn.org/artnode/ you can see a list of fresh texts
> > (click
> > Rhizome Fresh Texts) and you can also link to an RSS feed of these
> > fresh texts.
> >
> > If you click on the links from the web site you go directly to the
> > Rhiz
> > article whether you're logged in or not. (For some reason when
> > following links from my news reader I can't go directly to the
> > article
> > :( i go to the log-in screen )
> >
> > I was wrong, it seems anyone can link to any article and anyone can
> > follow those links to the articles as long as the referrer isn't
> > Rhizome or if the referrer doesn't exist. Is that how it works?
> >
> > The problem then, isn't IF you can link to Rhiz articles, it's that
> > Rhiz doesn't seem to want non-members to link to Rhiz articles
> > because
> > they make it hard to do so by not providing the tools (RSS feeds
> with
> > subjects/descriptions of articles).
> >
> > For example, if I'm a non-member of Rhizome, how do I decide I
> would
> > like to link to an article on the home page? I see the headline, I
> > see
> > a short description, but I can't read the entire thing to decide..
> > unless someone (other than Rhiz) provides me with a link.. or I make
> > it
> > myself..
> >
> > This is just kinda nutty functionality (i understand it was a
> > compromise): only people other than Rhiz can provide access to
> > non-members.
> >
> > +++
> >
> > or perhaps this is me just whining because I want a fully
> functioning
> > Rhizome Raw in my news reader so I can clear out my email box ;-)
> >
> >
> > > This is not a matter of whether members would/should pay for
> > > supporting something they are part of, but is rather about WHAT
> > > members are paying for. hence t.whid's concern about linking and
> > the
> > > future posterity of Rhizome as an active resource. Anyway, many
> > > arguments about logistics and needs/desires could be made, and i'm
> > not
> > > making any at the moment (though those desiring feeds have my
> ear),
> > > but i think it's important to not take the discussion back to the
> > $5
> > > argument, as i don't think anyone is wanting to financially
> desert
> > > Rhizome.
> > > best,
> > > ryan
> > >
> >
> > ===
> > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > ===
> >
> >