[Ansteorra] Member or Not?

[Chris Zakes]

At 11:15 AM 1/10/2008, you wrote:
>Pug gave a clue in his response. They are looking at the membership
>requirements for a group as an indicator that the group can field a slate of
>officers to operate that group over time. Sustaining members are typically
>old enough to be an officer. Since the associate members usually include
>family and usually include minors, it is more difficult to assume a count
>which includes those represents a reasonable pool for officers.


I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I would expect most sustaining 
members to be folks who are sufficiently hooked on the SCA to be 
willing to pay full price. Associate members would most likely be 
college students or other folks with limited budgets, not minors. 
(Realistically, the only difference between a sustaining membership 
and an associate membership is whether or not you get a "Black Star" 
and how you get counted in situations like the current one.)

The kicker is the family memberships. It makes a lot more sense for a 
husband and wife with three kids to get the family membership 
($35.00+25.00=60.00) instead of five sustaining  memberships 
($175.00) or even one sustaining and the rest associate memberships 
($35.00+4x20.00=115.00.) The only time that it really matters how 
many of those memberships are "sustaining" is in a situation like this one.

         -Tivar Moondragon