I'll preface this by saying none of it has anything to do with my previous employment at the JREF, and that all the information I give is my opinion.
The JREF forum is not a resource. Not really. Consider a comparison between the amount of money Penn Jillette has donated publicly to the JREF (tens of thousands of dollars PER YEAR) to the amount donated by every forum member combined. Unless someone super freaking rich who likes remaining anonymous is hanging around these boards, I doubt these figures even merit comparison. And, even if there is a super freaking rich person hanging around anonymously, I doubt that the reason they give has anything whatever to do with the forum, and more to do with love for the JREF and its goals.
If you've attended TAM, then you may have looked around when they ask the series of questions, "Are you a member of the JREF forums?", "Is this your first TAM?". When I looked around, the handraising seemed to indicate that most attendees were at TAM for the first time. Most were not forum members.
There's no great reason for the JREF staff to communicate often with the forumites because the forumites are the least likely supporters of the JREF to give meaningful support.
So we make brilliant posts that can be Googled, and in return, the JREF lets us hang here under their name. This is fair; this is equal.
I do buck under the sentiment I get from the e-mails and the PM. But the fact of the matter is - even if I WAS donating, it would be so little as to be superfluous.
DJ said, earlier in the thread (unless I am mistaken, I didn't go look at it again), that the executive salaries are paid by a single donor. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars from ONE person. Is it any wonder, really, that we did not get a special PM? Face it - we don't merit one.
The reason the forum table is at TAM isn't because it's so important it needs representation. It is because very few attendees are aware of its existence.
What would ultimately make more sense is to separate the JREF from the forum and have someone else run it. It could still fly under the JREF name, but not be associated to any greater extent. And actually, if you look at it, isn't that pretty much already the way it is?
What I do not appreciate, on the other hand, is DJ's use of the terms 'professional' and 'successful' to describe current employees in such a way as to imply that prior ones were NOT professional or successful.
Even before I started working with the JREF, heading the forum and keeping his hands in its activities was part of Jeff's job description. Since the entirety of Bart's employment that I'm aware of personally falls under a time when I was employed by the JREF, I'll not comment on it.
From my work with other non-profits (I was a security guard, docent, and membership coordinator for an art museum, as well as a couple of other places in lesser roles), I would've expected the call for donations from the JREF to be more clearly itemized. For instance, alright, you have provided materials to schools regarding critical thinking. What schools? How many? What materials? How are they being used? ARE they being used? Did you just mail them over and stand back and hope it would work out, or are you working with districts to ensure these programs are installed, and to measure their success?
Maybe this information is in the newsletter. I wouldn't know. I don't subscribe to it. But therein lies the problem - I shouldn't have to reach out for information on these things. It should be at my fingertips, because THAT is the mark of a 'successful' fundraiser - being able to tell, at a glance, what you have done, what you will do, what you hope to do, and your timeframe for doing it.
The entirety of the future plans for the JREF, in the call for donations (which you can see here: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/1471 ) is one sentence, which reads:
It is an inherently meaningless statement. And if I had money, I would blink at that, unsubscribe, and move on.
Again, this is my opinion as an interested party, and has nothing whatever to do with my employment at the JREF. I do wish, in fact, that we had used the suggestion made by CaptainObvious when I was still there - because I'd much rather post this without anyone being able to tell who I am. But oh well. There's my two cents. With so many people donating theirs, hell of a fundraiser it is.
The JREF forum is not a resource. Not really. Consider a comparison between the amount of money Penn Jillette has donated publicly to the JREF (tens of thousands of dollars PER YEAR) to the amount donated by every forum member combined. Unless someone super freaking rich who likes remaining anonymous is hanging around these boards, I doubt these figures even merit comparison. And, even if there is a super freaking rich person hanging around anonymously, I doubt that the reason they give has anything whatever to do with the forum, and more to do with love for the JREF and its goals.
If you've attended TAM, then you may have looked around when they ask the series of questions, "Are you a member of the JREF forums?", "Is this your first TAM?". When I looked around, the handraising seemed to indicate that most attendees were at TAM for the first time. Most were not forum members.
There's no great reason for the JREF staff to communicate often with the forumites because the forumites are the least likely supporters of the JREF to give meaningful support.
So we make brilliant posts that can be Googled, and in return, the JREF lets us hang here under their name. This is fair; this is equal.
I do buck under the sentiment I get from the e-mails and the PM. But the fact of the matter is - even if I WAS donating, it would be so little as to be superfluous.
DJ said, earlier in the thread (unless I am mistaken, I didn't go look at it again), that the executive salaries are paid by a single donor. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars from ONE person. Is it any wonder, really, that we did not get a special PM? Face it - we don't merit one.
The reason the forum table is at TAM isn't because it's so important it needs representation. It is because very few attendees are aware of its existence.
What would ultimately make more sense is to separate the JREF from the forum and have someone else run it. It could still fly under the JREF name, but not be associated to any greater extent. And actually, if you look at it, isn't that pretty much already the way it is?
What I do not appreciate, on the other hand, is DJ's use of the terms 'professional' and 'successful' to describe current employees in such a way as to imply that prior ones were NOT professional or successful.
Even before I started working with the JREF, heading the forum and keeping his hands in its activities was part of Jeff's job description. Since the entirety of Bart's employment that I'm aware of personally falls under a time when I was employed by the JREF, I'll not comment on it.
From my work with other non-profits (I was a security guard, docent, and membership coordinator for an art museum, as well as a couple of other places in lesser roles), I would've expected the call for donations from the JREF to be more clearly itemized. For instance, alright, you have provided materials to schools regarding critical thinking. What schools? How many? What materials? How are they being used? ARE they being used? Did you just mail them over and stand back and hope it would work out, or are you working with districts to ensure these programs are installed, and to measure their success?
Maybe this information is in the newsletter. I wouldn't know. I don't subscribe to it. But therein lies the problem - I shouldn't have to reach out for information on these things. It should be at my fingertips, because THAT is the mark of a 'successful' fundraiser - being able to tell, at a glance, what you have done, what you will do, what you hope to do, and your timeframe for doing it.
The entirety of the future plans for the JREF, in the call for donations (which you can see here: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/1471 ) is one sentence, which reads:
It is an inherently meaningless statement. And if I had money, I would blink at that, unsubscribe, and move on.
Again, this is my opinion as an interested party, and has nothing whatever to do with my employment at the JREF. I do wish, in fact, that we had used the suggestion made by CaptainObvious when I was still there - because I'd much rather post this without anyone being able to tell who I am. But oh well. There's my two cents. With so many people donating theirs, hell of a fundraiser it is.
:
