Hello, Subscribers; Wow! This message came to me right after the confirmation that my donation of $21 has reached Rootsweb. The amount of $21 has been chosen by me because it has a special meaning to me. However, under the GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, I am not obligated to pay any donations to Rootsweb for the priviledge of ownership [as I understand it]. There have been many a discussion about donations to Rootsweb, and I am the first to tell every one that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a requirement to pay any money to subscribe to a Rootsweb mailing list. But, we did not promise to not tickle your conscience every now and then about donating the basic donation of $12 a year. And that is what this entire message is all about. Ever since I realized that all of us listowners were expected to send in a donation of $24 which would entitle us to own 2 lists, I have been tryhing to think of a way I could do this on my fixed income. Well, for me. it is Home Banking. So, I figure until I am totally paid, for past, present and future list ownership, I will begin by paying $21 a month. This is $1.00 a month a list. Back to my donation. It has taken me the better part of three weeks to set up Rootsweb as one of my """PAYEES""" in my Home Banking. Believe me, this has been an excercise in patience and lots of "Elevator music" while I was on hold. So, if you have Home Banking through **Bank Of America**, in California, you now can go to the place where you ADD A PAYEE and you will find Rootsweb there. Add them and send in a donation, TODAY!!! For me, it makes it much easier to catch up on my donations and then I will truly feel like I have done my part. Now!!! The neat thing is that if you have Home Banking at any bank, in any state, you can petition your Bank and see if you can set up Rootsweb to be a payee. Then, you can make regular donations. Maybe you can just donate $2.00 a month. That is such a small donation that you cannot possible miss it. Like my husband tells me, I dribble more than $2.00 down my chin every day, so I can afford my choice of $21.00 a month, and maybe even more in a good month. Now, I truly feel like I am an important part of Rootsweb. Please do not be offended by this message. I try to make good subject lines. So, if this subject irritates or buggs you, just delete it. I am not here to annoy, only to make a statement about something I believe to be very important to the world of Genealogy. We all know how lost we would be without Rootsweb. So, come on every one, dig down and let us see how much we can help this most worthy cause. Sandra in Sacramento ******************** At 02:54 PM 8/21/98 +11:00, Andrew Billinghurst wrote: >G'day gang, > >[20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c 20c >I will put all the 20 cents up front. Tell me what change I have >left at the end. <g>] > >We have had nine issues of RootsWeb Review and we have had the >feedback that hits are up and it is thought that this could have been >due to RWR. Have we had a proportional increase in membership? > >RWR is still very low key with respect to membership, and we have had >the 'connecting through RootsWeb' section. Can I suggest that in >this section that we look at including 'sharing stories' from those >who are members and sponsors. IMO we need some stories that clearly >demonstrate the benefit of being a member and especially a sponsor >(donors are different no extra bonuses). Example - I would like to >see a story on how through the email notification program (membership >BENEFIT) that someone was able to have the information come to them >and they got lots of leads or contacts. > >Another spin that I would like to hear is something that explains to >all the RWR readers is a story about listowners. At the moment I do >not believe that any of the subscribers to the lists actually >understands that the lists setup are paid for by the listowners. So >maybe a day in the life of a listowner, or a listowner explaining how >they went about setting up their list, and what it involves (some of >this may be contingent upon responses to the following paras). > >A question for BRIAN or KAREN. Is it financially efficient to get >people who want a mailing list to take out sponsorships or is it >basically cost neutral? I suppose this is saying if we want to >increase the money coming in to cover costs and then to grow which >area do we encourage the growth. I will take it for granted that >DONORS are best, but which next. > >Following on from that if a sponsor wants more than two mailing >lists, is there a specified cost for subsequent lists are do we wish >to limit people to ownership of 2 mailing lists where possible. My >gut feeling is if the SPONSORSHIP cost is break even for two mailing >lists, then subsequent mailing lists should be at a premium cost. >Why? I feel that if we are 'Co-op'ing then it is best that the work >load is shared and that we increase the level of involvement, plus if >people WANT extra lists then this is a way to keep the finances >flowing. Another option is to put a higher listownership limit on >Donors and see if that increases Donors. > >Gee this mail is getting long. > >BRIAN, we have seen through RWR (Staff-L) the infrastructure that >has been implemented and the hidden message (and I still think that >it is reasonably hidden) is the cost that is involved in the >expansion. However, one could almost read into the articles that due >to the unbridled expansion that finances are not a concern. I do not >know the solution for this but feel that maybe if we said that due to >finances (lack of) that improvements A, B and C have had to be put >off to increase output D and service E which are under strain. > >Regards Andrew >ps. Don't worry about any change from the 20c > > Sandra [T.YLER] D.UNCAN {ôçô} purplevw @ sl.net (ô¿ô) •••PLEASE check with me before sending any attachments!!!••• Support RootsWeb! Go "NOW" to: http://www.rootsweb.com My page is updated... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3577 Try the EBay online Auction for my dollhouse... http://www.ebay.com