HP3000-L Archives

August 2000, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Dirickson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Steve Dirickson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:32:08 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
How about this: disallow *all* corporate contributions? I.e.,
contributions may only come from individuals, using something (check,
credit card, whatever) with that individual's name on it. In addition
to eliminating the "few big corporate contributors" dismissal, it also
eliminates accusations of deep-pocketed sponsors "buying" de-facto
advertising space on the page. I'm confident that the appropriate
people at HP will recognize the names on the list and know which
companies are being represented, but it should be telling that those
individuals chose to invest their own personal funds to help get HP's
attention.

$7K is way too high: 20 companies "buying" the page with corporate
funds is a hell of a lot less impressive than a couple of hundred
individuals doing so with their own hard-earned greenbacks.


Steve Dirickson   [log in to unmask]
WestWin Consulting  (36) 598-6111


> >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."
> ...
>
> >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.
>
> I understand that it is vital that this is in both reality
> and appearance a
> community effort.  I do think that if enough companies and
> individuals (and
> even dogs) contribute, raising the limit to $7000 will not give the
> impression that is being pushed by a few self-interested vendors -
> especially since the contribution amounts are being kept
confidential.
>
> So, I disagree with your disagreement.  I think that the limit can
be
> raised to $7000 without harming the cause.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2