Laura says:

> I see your point Sterling, but we are already suppose to be contributing
> as a "matter of conscience," right? If a person is "required" to pay
> (indicating that there is a penalty for non-payment) then it DOES become
> a "matter of bureaucratic enforcement," does it not? Either it is a free
> will offering or it is not. I vote for a free will offering :)

I'm not proposing that it be a matter of being "required" so much as being a
matter of committment, which is a free-will choice. I'm proposing that if a
person wishes to be a part of the guild, they need to be willing to commit
as a bare minimum to contribute either 1% of their income or 1% of their
time and talents, or a combination thereof. That is not too much to ask,
and it is not going to break anyone's bank, nor is it asking more time from
them that what is reasonable.

There are 1440 minutes in a day (cool number). 1% is 14.4 minutes each day,
or 7.2 hours per month.

What I'm proposing is that each person commit to contribute on an ongoing
basis a tithe of a tithe, either in the form of funds, or time, or talents.
15 minutes a day, or 1% of your net income, or a combination of both -- as a
bare minimum.

No one can say that is unreasonable. Most members will give far more than
this.

The reason it does not enter into a beurocratic oversight is becuase of the
way it is expected of each member. What we are asking is that each member
give their word that they will commit to this, and that they keep their
word.

What marriage would last if there were no committments? no sacrifices?

What I am proposing is that unless a person agrees to make this commitment,
they will not be able to be a member of the organization. It's not a matter
of penalty for non-payment. It's a matter of conscience -- of keeping one's
word to live up to a minimal standard to which they have agreed.

At least a tithe of a tithe, to suport the guild.

Doug has seconded this motion.

Any further comments before we bring the matter to a vote?

Sterling