[plug] Family membership

[Bret Busby]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Ian Kent wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Russell Steicke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I thought I'd kick off the discussion that was anticipated last night,
>>> about family memberships for PLUG.  I'm in favour of the idea, and
>>> suggest that a family membership be twice the cost of a full
>>> (non-concession) membership.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Russell Steicke
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I suggest that a family membership be less than twice the cost of a full
>> membership - maybe the sum of a full membership and a concessional membership,
>> so that couples can join cheaper than joining separately, unless both members
>> of a couple are eligible for, and join as, concessional memberships, in which
>> case I think that no further concession should apply.
>>
>> Thus, where one or more partners in a couple are earning an income, the joint
>> or family membership fee would be equal to one full adult membership plus one
>> concessional membership, and, where both partners in a couple are eligible for
>> concessional membership, then their membership fee(s) should be equal to two
>> separate concessional fees.
>>
>> So, the fee structure would be something like:
>> Single - income earning - $10 (currently, I believe)
>>        - non-income earning (pensioners, unemployed, students, etc) - $5
>>          (currently, I believe)
>> Family - sum of Single income earning and Single non-income earning -
>>          $15 (from sum of above rates),
>>          except where both partners in a couple are eligible for Single
>>          non-income earning memberships, in which case the fee is twice
>>          the Single non-income earning memberhip fee (Total of $10,
>>          from above rates.
>>
>
> Hi Bret,
>
> You've clearly given this some thought.
>
> The fee structure you recommend is quite close to the standard membership
> fee, which is fine.
>
> But what are the advantages, to the family, to Plug?
> And what disadvantages can you see with the proposal, for each of the
> above?
>
> Ian
>
>

Hello, Ian.

I think that what I have proposed encourages couples to join, and to 
participate, with both members of a couple, in addition to encouraging 
family units that involve children, to similarly, join and to 
participate.

In these changing times, some couples do not have children, but maybe 
only one partner works. The other partner, not being either a student 
or a social security beneficiary, is likely not eligible for a 
concessional membership, but is financially dependent (breadwinner and 
housewife example). So, my proposal would (I believe) be appropriate for 
this scenario.

Another possible family unit in these times, is a sole parent family 
unit, where a sole parent looks after one or more children (children 
meaning offspring, which may be anything from toddler to university 
student, dependent on parent). I believe that my proposal would 
similarly be appropriate for this scenario. If a sole parent has one, 
or, two, dependent children, who can use Linux, what advantage is there 
in charging two or more adult, non-concessional memberships, as a family 
membership fee?

If, as Russell proposed, a family membership is charged at the rate of 
double the full (non-concession) membership, then, if the family unit 
involves only one income earner, there is no benefit to the family unit, 
of joining as a family unit.

And, I think that we need to be wary about being presumptuous that a 
family necessarily includes 1) two adults (as in a two parent family 
involving children), and, 2) where two adults are involved, either as 
two adults without children, or, two adults with children, both adults 
having sufficient incomes as to be taxable.

Now, there are the financial benefits of joining as a family unit, under 
my proposal, as the members of the family unit are more likely to join, 
rather than a single, non-concessional membership for a household.

But, apart from that aspect, a benefit, to the members of the family 
unit, and, to PLUG, is that, if more than a single, non-concessional 
membership is paid for a household, in the nature of a family 
membership, then, more incentive exists for the different members 
covered by the family membership, to be active members.

That can involve attending seminars and workshops, which can increase 
the spread of the knowledge and skills conveyed, and it can increases 
the usage of Linux. Example - Fred Dagg likes Linux, his wife, Wota, 
likes MS Windows. He takes her along to a meeting, takes out a family 
membership, they figure that, since they have a family membership, they 
might as well make the most of it, so they both attend seminars. Wota 
sees the latest version of Ubuntu, being demonstrated, with email and 
uploading images from a digital camera that happens to be similar to the 
camera that Wota uses and messes around with Windows, to upload the 
images. Wota says, "Gee, this ubuntu thing looks interesting, and 
uploading the images from the camera, looks much easier than the messing 
around with Windows. I think I will try it." And, away she goes, another 
convert to Linux.

Similarly, with people who use Linux now, who may not already be 
members of PLUG, with a family membership that costs less than two 
single non-concessional memberships, they may be encouraged to join, 
with the slightly greater incentive, being the difference that causes 
them to join. And, in joining as a couple, with the family membership, 
because it is (proposed) cheaper than two single non-concessional 
memberships, both members of the couple, figure that, having paid the 
membership fee, and, being a family membership, they may as well make 
the most of it, and, make more of a point of attending PLUG seminars and 
workshops. Now, that can also have the added benefit of reducing the 
queries on the mailing list, which may relate to material that is 
covered at workshops or seminars, by the people being more inspired to 
attend seminars and workshops, having paid the membership fees, for a 
household.

And, that can equally apply to family units that include children 
(children as described above).

And, there is also the aspect, Ian, that, as you and I both know, having 
been associated with PLUG over a number of years, there is, as with most 
non-profit organisations, difficulty in getting people to fill positions 
as office-bearers or otherwise on committees, or otherwise to fill 
voluntary positions within an organisation, and, the greater the pool of 
members from which nominees/volunteers/suckers can be drawn, the more 
likelihood of getting positions filled, and, the greater the prospect of 
getting a good person for each job.

I hope that these aspects are useful in considering my proposal.

I don't see any likely disadvantages to my proposal, considering the 
aspects that I have raised, other than that PLUG might not be getting as 
much money as it might otherwise get. But, from memory, money has not 
been a significant problem with PLUG. Not that PLUG is rolling in money. 
Far from it. But, from what I understand, PLUG has had (in previous 
years) enough money in the kitty, to keep it going (not to undertake 
freeway extensions, or trips to the Bahama's, but enough to keep PLUG 
going), and, from what I understand, the issue has basically been to get 
more members, to increase participation, and, to increase the usage of 
Linux and the spread of knowledge and skills, relating to Linux, and, I 
believe that my proposal may assist in that.

--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
  you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
   Chapter 28 of
   "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
   A Trilogy In Four Parts",
   written by Douglas Adams,
   published by Pan Books, 1992

....................................................