Ted writes:

> There has been some talk of raising that limit.  As we're shooting for a
>  high goal and as the life of the 3000 affects numerous vendors, I'd like to
>  propose that vendor contributions be welcomed and that the cap be raised to
>  $7000 (1/22 or roughly 4.5% of the total).

Actually, let me disagree, if you don't mind.

I believe the $1000 limit to be fairly important. In the years prior to the
Boston "riot", several vendors pushed very hard for many years to get HP to
change it's mind about a number of things, and many of those issues then were
the same as they are now. Nonetheless, the reaction from HP, right up to the
moment that they walked off the stage at Boston, was that it "was just a
bunch of noisy vendors trying to save their own asses."

Because we got nowhere with HP when it was just a bunch of noisy vendors (who
tried to quietly work internally, within HP), success didn't come until we
essentially recruited a large number of ordinary users to make their feelings
known. In this kind of situation, ordinary users count a hundred times more
than do the vendors. The vendors have an obvious vested interest in the
success of the HP3000 -- and that interest can be discounted in just one
sentence.

However, on practical terms, a contribution limit shouldn't prove any barrier
to those who want to give more (as anyone who's been watching the political
process this year knows). Not only can your company give $1000, but so can
you, your co-worker, and your dog. We'll gladly accept your dog's
contribution.

Nonetheless, the "appearance" of propriety is necessary.

All kidding aside, I do believe that the number of contributors is more
important than the dollar amount. The ad can always be reduced to a half-page
or quarter-page if sufficient funds can't be raised. But the number of
contributors remains the key.

Wirt