I would bet that I wouldn't be defined as a "core member", though I've been around a long time and I donate $$.

Denise, I think people are referring to lurkers who read and post nowhere at b.org.

Le Nubian, I would disagree. You actively post which seems to make you a core member.

As a former dedicated lurker, while I may agree with this:

I don't think that we should worry too much about what their wishes are.

I am a bit worried about this characterization which seems to color a lot of opinions (i.e. not just Jilli's) about lurkers:

they don't make an effort

It is not always a question of effort, interest, or commitment. When I was in grad school, for most of the day, I didn't have access to the internet. At home, I had dial-up via my phone line. There was honestly no way I could regularly participate.

And I don't know why we are making the lurker/member distinction. Do people think they are swaying voting?

And the idea of using contributions to define member status in any way gives me hives.

And I don't know why we are making the lurker/member distinction. Do people think they are swaying voting?

I don't think they are.

Really, le nubian? In my brain, anyone whose name I know is a "core member". But in some ways, I think we are governed by our core members... I would have to agree with Jesse that, at least in the past, the I "knew" most of the people both donating and voting, and it is fairly a fairly large group encompassing almost everyone I "know"

It just seems like people are saying, "Okay, we'll take this poll, but if we get answers from people that don't post in Natter or Bitches we'll just discount them because obviously they are not truly "One Of Us"."

That's not what I'm getting from what people are saying. People who post where ever are not lurkers. Those posters should speak up when we have these discussions and/or participate in voting, polls, whatever. If they don't, I think they've ceded what happens to the will of those of us who participate in this kind of thing. (And someone suggested making sure the poll could be anonymous, which I think is a fine idea.)

Ditto actual lurkers, actually, but I really don't feel any need to take their wishes into account when we try to figure out what this community is, because it isn't them. Sorry lurkers, I don't mean that to sound as mean as it does. What I mean is more like, I don't get to tell Rachel that she and Ross are all wrong for each other because I'm just watching them. Or something. I don't know what I mean.

Okay, so let me ask this question: given our current level of fundraising and costs, how many more threads can this website support before we have real degradation in service?

To me, this is a really important point that I'd like to hear someone address definitively.

Those posters should speak up when we have these discussions and/or participate in voting, polls, whatever. If they don't, I think they've ceded what happens to the will of those of us who participate in this kind of thing.

I agree with this. Obviously if someone's not willing to even vote or answer the poll there's no way to take their wishes into account even if people wanted to.

I agree that we should not bend over backwards to accomodate people who don't tell how us how we can accomodate them. That way lies madness. We've got plenty of madness without going and getting extra.

To me, this is a really important point that I'd like to hear someone address definitively.

So I have the spare cash to donate $250, do I get a bigger say?

or

I want more threads, if it's a tech issue, I'll pay to make it happen.

I don't like the path this might lead down.