What would you do if the forum had a subscription fee (to post classifieds, etc)?

I know what you are saying - and I'm not passing judgement on it.

All I think you do owe is transparency, when people can make the decision for themselves.

It would be wrong for people to donate BECAUSE they thought you were in debt or needed it, and that you actually weren't and were making money from it.

I don't think thats unreasonable.

Fuck me sideways Furtwangler - Velocio don't owe anyone jackshit, this forum exists ONLY because he set it up and continues to invest hugely of his time and intellect, without it this place would collapse in a week…

It's not a charity that 'needs' to be transparent, [VB has probably been less than transparent when money was needed and kept the forum going at cost to himself]

This internet based website is both informative and entertaining!
I think it would be a shame to make people pay so let us hope there is enough support, dosh wise, so it doesn't come to that!
Right, i better cough up.

I haven't put much thought into the detail as yet but how about running it more along the lines of a collective. Perhaps still set it up as a private Ltd. company but offer the opportunity to every forumenger the opportunity to buy a single share - say at £5 or even £10. That will put up a load of capital in up front - transfer all the assets (servers, domain names, intellectual prop rights etc.) to the company so there is shared ownership and as a collective the shareholders can agree on a fee to pay VB for all his work to maintain the infrastucture. You then have transparency and a formal framework (i.e. votes by shareholders) to agree key issues such as subscription fees, advertising, what to do with surpluses (over and above VB's fee - which I totally support) etc.. New members can take up the option of buying in and become an active part of the project. You could perhaps even tap in to the wide skill base that exists on the forum to get all the legals/financials etc. done by proper professionals (but importantly members of the forum) - again a modest fee could be agreed on, (which you would expect that to be "mates rates" to be consistent with the spirit of the project).

My perspective wasn't that VB was advocating an attempt at conquering the FTSE100 but merely suggesting that a more sustainable model for the ongoing health and growth needs to be developed. And yes, he puts in loads of time, so if, apart from the kudos and obvious sense of supreme power that goes with it, who would begrudge him the odd set of wheels in return (by odd I obviously mean 1 x 700 and 1 x 650).

Just a thought.

I didn't notice the donation button until now.

make the donation button more obvious than red light at a traffic junction, this should able to encourage more people to donate.

Fuck me sideways Furtwangler - Velocio don't owe anyone jackshit, this forum exists ONLY because he set it up and continues to invest hugely of his time and intellect, without it this place would collapse in a week…

It's not a charity that 'needs' to be transparent, [VB has probably been less than transparent when money was needed and kept the forum going at cost to himself]

+1

I completely agree with a fee - however, it should be totally transparent. If you start to make a profit then you should say so.

Your taking part in the discussion is meritable, but your opinions appear quite strong for a person that's only been here 10 seconds.

In my view LFGSS has the potential to overshadow any shop in London. I have seen other businesses make millions out of growing shops around forums - because they're an instantly loyal cystomer base. This and product reviews would be my personal vision. And I am willing to help.

I agree with this 100%, but its not about my vision or yours, but in the short-term, sorting out this forum's financial viability.

I know what you are saying - and I'm not passing judgement on it.

It appears that you are.

All I think you do owe is transparency, when people can make the decision for themselves.

You couldn't be more wrong, if you were born inside-out. WE OWE VB, but I don't see how VB owes us a goddam thing.

It would be wrong for people to donate BECAUSE they thought you were in debt or needed it, and that you actually weren't and were making money from it.

This assumes a level of dishonesty, that only YOU, have ever envisaged in the running of this forum, or personally, about it's founder. Yes, its an honest enough statement, but it is also deeply offensive.[/quote]

I don't think thats unreasonable.

I think what you wrote was unreasonable in large parts, and totally off colour.

Furtwangler, you aren't sufficiently aware of previous discussions on this subject and Velocio's stance on it--he's already expressed it (again), and BDW puts it very succinctly.

I haven't read the thread fully, but for what its worth here is my two cents.

Firstly I am to adversed to the amount. I can afford it, I see it as a reasonable amount, and I gather it will produce enough money to pay for the forum if even a fraction of the forum coff up.

However like others I have a few reservations.

I have been entirely unaware that you have been in the red VB. In fact I was labouring under the impression that the forum made you money already due to the lack of communication on this level. As such I have never felt the need to donate. I believe if the same can be said of many you have your reason for the donations not funding everything. I know other forums with much less loyal members who produce the money they need to keep the forum running by making it very clear how much the forum needs at any particular time, and making a real drive for the aforementioned donations. A cover page, where news and announcements are made seems to aid in this. One thing this forum does lack is a clear and obvious place to find administrative announcements. In essence I don't think the donate function has been adequately advertised and utilised, and that perhaps that should be looked at before implementing a toll.

Because of this I also worry that not enough people will see this thread and poll. That 300 or so people will vote and their vote will be taken despite a membership that is far larger then that 300.

The other 'problem' I have is not practical, but ideological. As I said I don't oppose the £3 charge on a financial level. But ideologically this is a service I don't expect to pay for. Although technically not open source, the forum employs ideas of open sourcing or at least crowd sourcing for the free dissemination of knowledge through a community. I wouldn't pay for wikipedia. Wikipedia has costs, and they are looked after by X, and they have to do the real work and programming (X obviously is not one man), but the content is not generated by X, but by the community. The same is true here. Velocio does have to stump up to cover costs, and do all the technical stuff for the forum, but he isn't solely responsible for the forums greatness. We all are. To greater and lesser extents, but the success of the forum is realy built on the backs of the members. The reason why its at the top of search patters on google for a variety of bike related questions is because of the content added by the member base.

Forum members invest huge amounts of time in the forum. They generate content, support each other and put on events. What about the member who writes threads to help new members, or the member who designs, reccies and runs group events or rides. They have all made significant investments into the forum. Maybe they are as big a investment as VBs, maybe they aren't, but they shouldn't be ignored. Thus I feel I have to oppose the idea of VB making a profit, because if he does we all should, I'm talking principally, not practically. Maybe not every one deserves the same cut, but if VB started making sizeable sums of money from members using a board where they provide the content I would be worried to say the least.

By the same token VB shouldn't have to stump up and pay for the forum on his own. Infact I would argue that VB shouldn't contribute financialy at all, that all his technical stuff has earnt him the right to not pay. I don't think its earnt him the right to be paid. VB may well make the site run, and be responsible for it, but I didn't join it for him, I joined it for every one. Thus I firmly feel that donation should remain voluntary and that funds in excess of costs should remain at the forums disposal. Transparency is an expectaction that I feel the forum has a right to. That said if VB wanted to take some money from any profit I wouldn't complain, but it should be reasonable, transparent and agreed upon. I also wouldn't object to profits being used to back pay VB for any money he has spent on the forum in the past, again if transparent, reasonable and agreed upon.

+++

Disclaimer: The above probably sounds fairly harsh and VB, you may see it as an attack on you or your character. Please don't. I don't know you personaly, so I can pass you judgement on you as an indivdual. I only speak of you as ADMIN man or what have you. I also make no secret of my bias to FLOS, to open source methods and in possible social implications of them. My second argument is based upon principle and belief, not necessarily a practical one.

Best.

This assumes a level of dishonesty, that only YOU, have ever envisaged in the running of this forum, or personally, about it's founder. Yes, its an honest enough statement, but it is also deeply offensive.

I don't think it assumes that at all. All the gent suggests is that it should be made clear if the forum is making a profit or not, so they can make an informed decision. If its not clear one MAY think that the forum is in the red and thus contributes to keep it running when infact its say £9,300 in the green, and had he of known that he wouldn't of donated. If you see what I mean.

I think it was a fair point, and one he is entitled to make. I definitely do not see it as an offensive statement, just a procedural point.

As for if the members have a right to know what they are spending their money on I think they damned well do. I aint giving you any dolla dolla without knowing what its being used for, whether its 10p or £1000. If you see what I mean.

Oooh and one last thing.
I think every one is being amazing, and its lovely to see such a loyalty to both forum and VB. we are indeed indebted to him. But don't do yourselves a dis-service. You all (almost all ;-) ) make this place great. I think thats worth remembering. The members shouldn't underplay their own roll.

Harry.Major, I know Furtwangler outside of this forum, I believe that you do not.

If you feel the need to just spout off, then please.......be my guest.

Now, where'd I leave Ernie and Bert?

The other 'problem' I have is not practical, but ideological. As I said I don't oppose the £3 charge on a financial level. But ideologically this is a service I don't expect to pay for. Although technically not open source, the forum employs ideas of open sourcing or at least crowd sourcing for the free dissemination of knowledge through a community. I wouldn't pay for wikipedia. Wikipedia has costs, and they are looked after by X, and they have to do the real work and programming (X obviously is not one man), but the content is not generated by X, but by the community.

Harry, this is completely irrelevant to the present discussion, but you do realise that the 'free' in 'free software' doesn't mean 'free of charge', don't you? ;)

And some of the issues you talk about have been addressed upthread, actually. It's a bit of a pain if you come to a massive thread like this late, but it is often worth reading it fully.

brilliant post(s), harry.

One thing this forum does lack is a clear and obvious place to find administrative announcements. In essence I don't think the donate function has been adequately advertised and utilised, and that perhaps that should be looked at before implementing a toll.

There's an announcements forum. It's in there. I don't put it in prime view as I don't think my voice is an important one... the majority of users should never have to care how the place is run, and actually I very much prefer if my role is largely invisible. If I'm invisible then I'm running the place well, I dislike strongly led things and I am not very good with authority, that I am the authority here is ironic. I had hoped before starting LFGSS that someone else would start it, I was waiting for it to happen for about 2 years before I got off my arse and did it. I do think my role is a small one in the big picture, essential for sure, but no more essential than a large number of people who have shaped the site into what it is.

Velocio does have to stump up to cover costs, and do all the technical stuff for the forum, but he isn't solely responsible for the forums greatness. We all are. To greater and lesser extents, but the success of the forum is realy built on the backs of the members. The reason why its at the top of search patters on google for a variety of bike related questions is because of the content added by the member base.

This is true of all sites, services, etc. To put it in business terms without the customers the businesses are nothing. Without the customers no business is viable, and this place is no exception.

I have to say it again, I do not have a motive to produce profit from the forum... but, if it happens, I am not going to deny it or fight it.

What I object to so strongly in the line that I shouldn't make any money from it is that whilst I fully am aligned with your beliefs on open source and crowd-sourcing (though I totally acknowledge that it's far more complex and layered than that, it's more a philosophical belief), that I also have very strong beliefs about socialism and labour.

Moreover, I believe that labour has a fundamental value that business should reward, or at least that the managers of the business (those who do profit from a venture) should not be allowed to take advantage of. In this case I view the site as the overall business, and the core of regular users as managers of the business as I listen to and am steered by what I hear vocalised by those people. It's head-to-tail because I do believe in the crowd-sourcing stuff and I do think what the community generate is the core value and that it is the crowd who provide the direction and vision.

You've got to see that this strange view is true. I mean... I've involved you all in the debate, and I listen keenly to your views on what is to be done about making the site sustainable and viable. In many ways whilst I do own and run the site, I view myself as your servant and not your leader.

Anyhow, if I am labour... then to be not rewarded at all feels unjust. Further, to be materially taken advantage of by the business feels unjust. I may not seek or be driven by any motive for profit, but I do think I have a value to the business that if denied is fundamentally wrong.

The weird thing is, I don't seek any profit, I don't expect there to be any profit, I don't believe in my ability to monetise the site to the point that it could make any profit.

But when so many other people are permitted to make profit (from selling merchandise, services, setting up related ventures, etc) to be singled out as a piece of labour within the system and to be told that my position is unique and unable to make profit... well it is insulting to the labour that I give to the site. It's stating that my labour has no value. As a strong believer in the labour movement any stance that says labour is worthless and need not be rewarded really strikes hard against me. I may not hope or expect to make a single penny, but I am strongly of the view that my skill, experience and effort does not have £0 value.

There is no open source project I know that values the contributors in this way, all that are able to sustain themselves financially pay their key contributors (defined as staff in the business world). Mozilla employees make money, wikipedia employers make money, even the maker of nginx makes money. Sometimes it's direct, sometimes it's indirect. But the reward for their labour is there... why is my position here so different?

And again, I don't even hope or expect the place to make a profit. As far as I'm concerned this argument is a philosophical one. The bit that strikes me strongest is that whilst money is no motive in this, whilst love always has been, to be valued at £0 is so extremely insulting on so many levels it doesn't inspire me to give love at all.

Disclaimer: The above probably sounds fairly harsh and VB, you may see it as an attack on you or your character. Please don't. I don't know you personaly, so I can pass you judgement on you as an indivdual. I only speak of you as ADMIN man or what have you. I also make no secret of my bias to FLOS, to open source methods and in possible social implications of them. My second argument is based upon principle and belief, not necessarily a practical one.

I don't take it as a personal attack from you. I similarly don't know you. But it does feel personal overall, all my life I felt worthless in the world and so I veered towards activity where I could provide a value and prove to myself that I'm not. You've just suggested to me that that was possibly a mistake, even in giving out of love with no other desires I have been assigned a monetary worth of £0. Money is a measure of value in this world (unfortunately), my value appears to be zilch. Thank you.

why are hard work, acts of auteurism[ame="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=nkH&ei=WnoCSofVEcaMjAfRk-30BA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=auteuristic&spell=1"][B][/B][/ame], pasison and profit all met with suspicion and shame.

The very fact that there is disagreement here on the amount, the way in which it is collected and whether it should exist at all, proves that transparency is necesssary.

I don't mean to be offensive and I am sorry if it came across that way - but for people to make a free and informed decision to donate or not, such information is necessary, otherwise they are being decieved, despite, I am sure, the general benevolence of the forum head.

Let us not also forget that while this community would not exist without the forum heads work, it would also not exist without the community that lives within in it. And every useful post that every one of us writes, uses both time and intellectual knowhow just as the forum head does when he creates and administers it.

If people want to be selfish cunts, let them be, everyone else on here can rise above it and I'm pretty sure they will. The options are twofold:

1. Transparency: Simply have a bar that shows how near the red the forum is

2. Turn this into a commercial enterprise: This will happen the moment you personally profit £1.

I can't see how there is any middle ground between these two positions.

If you'd like to turn this into some sort of commercial enterprise, then I admire you for it and as I said, it would no doubt be very sucessful and it would be a brilliant idea - but you've got to tell people that! Making this a commercial enterprise with real cash behind it could do all sorts of things, like the forum shop too for example. I don't want to be patronisiing because I know very little about you or the forum, but perhaps you should be personally clearer on what the long term vision is and simply create the strcuture which allows that to happen?

And just be clear, I said yes, on the vote - as I am happy to pay for the services here on offer. In that case, transparency isnt necesary because the contract is one that I decide before I join the fourm and I know all the facts: If I want to join, I pay x.

That isnt the same if I decide of my own free will to donate.

If I want to join, I pay x.

It's not exclusive.

Read and re-read.

You would not have to pay, just to use the site.

Yer don't get owt for nowt in this life.

No problem at all paying to support the infrastructure of this site.

I have no concerns whatsoever that VB will administer the funds fairly and appropriately.

Cheers, VB. Keep on keepin' on!

I don't see a problem - if VB makes a few bob out of it for himself he deserves it!

I completely agree and anyway on past form there's a far greater risk that in ploughing it all back in VB'd over do it and still subsidise the forum. £3 feels like a bit of a weird number, though I'm sure it's been sensibly arrived at, I'd happily go for £1 a month, £2.50 a quarter or £5-£10 a year, whichevers easiest to set up.

Can't see it happening, but if for some reason so much money came in that it was a problem spending it on prizes/reviews/whatever, could use some to subsidise/cover the cost of things like the Monopoly ride. But to be honest I'm none to fussed where it goes, never been ripped off/exploited by the forum before, no fears of it happening in the future :)

It's not exclusive.

Read and re-read.

You would not have to pay, just to use the site.

I meant join as in get all listed benefits.

You couldn't be more wrong, if you were born inside-out.

I absolutely love this phrase GA2G!

This has heated up a bit hasn't it?

I'm not keen on a fee purely because it's another barrier for new members to go through, that's all, but I see no reason why the forum should not have a funding surplus, for contingencies, and I also see no reason why VB should not, if funds allow, take a payment for the time he spends making everything run so smoothly. If there was a funds-o-meter then that would eliminate the problem of people donating when the forum was in credit, and encourage them to donate when it was not.

I like the idea of a permanent shop page for the t-shirts, saddle danglers, bulk-buys, stickers, and all that. it could work well

Come here and give me a hug VB........

I have been through the inception of membership payments at a couple of other forums I have participated in. The fees and facilities available were structured very similar to what VB has proposed.

The difference was that there wasn't this admirable consultation process, it simply happened. The announcement was made, some justification offered and it was rolled out. An amount of criticism and histrionics followed, many people signed up and in 6 months it was the norm.

There are alot of intelligent, principled people on here; As such when VB throws something like this to the floor he is bound to get a myriad of opinions.
I still believe that this is VB's forum and I believe that he should be rewarded for his efforts, he should certainly not be out of pocket. Perhaps too simplistic for some but I am a simple man.

Bring it in, rake it in and then buy me a packet of pork scratchings at the next party.

I think VB ought not to be covering the costs himnself, i think we all agree on that. If there are profits from a scheme like this, maybe they could be used for charitable ends? I for one would like to see money supporting people who have been maimed on our roads cycling, or the families/dependents of those killed being supported in some small way.

My suggestion, to ask for a sub rather than donations was in the thread discussing possible rules for selling stuff, was aimed at trying to make sure dealers and people who sell a LOT of stuff do contribute to the running of the servers. I hope that sellers can accept that with grace. A one-off per annum payment isn't exactly going to break the bank compared to eBay fees, which are per sale. But Illy's point that maybe selling stuff ought to be charged per item or percent of sale value is also valid, even if its hard to conceive of how it will work. However it's worth noting that only eBay auctions that DO sell are charged, whereas we're discussing the possibility of charging to start threads, for stuff which may not sell. It could be too much of a difficult area to get into. Perhaps a flat fee for all thread-starting is the way forward for reasons of simplicity.

I think a 'gold member' status for other 'priveleges' would be worth doing, as someone suggested, the idea of cometitions might be cool. It would make this place a sort of club, which migh not be a bad thing, and might give us the impetus to work harder at attrcting new and valid members ourselves, rather than just waiting for them to materialise out of the googlesphere. I think those who've mentioned being put off joining if there was a fee are being a bit whiney to be frank. I reckon if you value this forum you can support it. I think if you want to ask stuff on threads you should be able to. But making out that its some inalienable right to do this for free is bunk. This is not Another Forum. Its special. Seriously special. If newcomers are able to see that, by contributing, maybe joing events or rides or track meets or polo or whatever, they'll soon start to want to give the money, whether they have things to sell or not. Its a fantastic place.

By the way, as I came up with it I think I don't have to pay. (big fuck off wink 'emo-ti-con')

This what I was thinking (ta, dont need to type it out now). I like the idea of say £10 a year but with competitions. There are a few shops/sellers that use the forum, who could maybe provide prizes in return for the great promotion they would recieve. I also like the idea of any profit being put into helping cyclists whom have been victoms of crashes, theft, vandalism etc. as well as helping to keep the rides and bike events happening. Basically just getting/keeping people on bikes.

Thats made me fell all warm inside. I think I'll buy the forum a beer :)

The very fact that there is disagreement here on the amount, the way in which it is collected and whether it should exist at all, proves that transparency is necesssary.

I don't mean to be offensive and I am sorry if it came across that way - but for people to make a free and informed decision to donate or not, such information is necessary, otherwise they are being decieved, despite, I am sure, the general benevolence of the forum head.

Let us not also forget that while this community would not exist without the forum heads work, it would also not exist without the community that lives within in it. And every useful post that every one of us writes, uses both time and intellectual knowhow just as the forum head does when he creates and administers it.

If people want to be selfish cunts, let them be, everyone else on here can rise above it and I'm pretty sure they will. The options are twofold:

1. Transparency: Simply have a bar that shows how near the red the forum is

2. Turn this into a commercial enterprise: This will happen the moment you personally profit £1.

I can't see how there is any middle ground between these two positions.

If you'd like to turn this into some sort of commercial enterprise, then I admire you for it and as I said, it would no doubt be very sucessful and it would be a brilliant idea - but you've got to tell people that! Making this a commercial enterprise with real cash behind it could do all sorts of things, like the forum shop too for example. I don't want to be patronisiing because I know very little about you or the forum, but perhaps you should be personally clearer on what the long term vision is and simply create the strcuture which allows that to happen?

Don't know if you've met VB, I don't know exactly what he does and have no idea how much he earns (& don't care), but he's clearly a very knowledgeable and talented IT bod, to be honest if it was about making money, whatever the money making potential of the forum I'm pretty sure he could make oodles more for the time he's put into this doing something/anything less niche and more commercial. I think I understand your fears/concerns, but for my money you sometimes just have to decide that you trust the people involved and let them get on with it.

While I think it would unduly onerous and time consuming, there is a third way between the make no money/earn even £1 become a commercial site. Could set up as some kind of charity/mutual society. I don't see the need for this, so am definitely not recommending it, just floating it as an idea if the subscription models worries significant numbers of people. Though looking at the voting, doesn't seem to be the case.