Print

Print


"Grant R. Bowman" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> [edited]
>David,
>        This is really a radical idea, then.  As in the whole of my
>previous post, I mentioned that this umbrella organization is a neat idea.
>I like it.  I am unclear of exactly how it would work, that's all.
>...
>        Sorry, I didn't -mean- "do nothing", what I meant was that areas
>that contribute less money for whatever reason are supported by the systems
>that do lots of fundraising efforts.  This can be good assuming that all
>systems attempt equally to get funding and that everyone will accept the
>fact that the big support the small systems.  This system may not work
>otherwise.
 
This is approximately what I intend.
 
>>On the subject of donations all being divided equally, I don't recall
>>suggesting that (indeed, I can think of reasons why this would _not_
>>be a good idea -- a rural network with a higher per-capita cost should
>>not get the same funding per capita as an urban one with a lower per
>>capita cost).
>
>        Then how would these central pooled funds be allocated?  I'm not
>clear how this money would be divided up.  On what basis would you divide
>the money?  Operating costs per capita?  How would you relate the size of a
>system (number of users)?
 
Probably on basis of population of an area, with considerations for
other factors (allowances for higher operating costs in areas with
limited local calling areas, more money for systems in their infancy,
etc.).  Whatever formula is decided upon, it's important NOT to cast it
in stone, and start demanding that people conform to the system's
idiosyncrasies instead of vice versa.
 
No, I don't have a complete 130-page set of guidelines for funding
up in my head, I'm trying to work this problem out as I type (just like
most everyone else in this forum).
 
> [edited]
 
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
[log in to unmask]                Seattle, WA  98195