Originally Posted by Bama

My first thought questions to pose would be:

• What do you plan to do with the donated money?
• Why?
• What purpose would that serve?
• What difference do you think you could make?
• What steps would you take to implement that plan?
• Who would be in charge of implementing that plan?
• What experience does that person have?
• Other than donating funds, what part would other webmasters have to play in the success of the plan?

Originally Posted by jayeff

I pop up on most threads, here and on other boards, which involve business ethics, professionalism, long-term vs short-term thinking, etc. But just as I didn't support FSC when it was proposed (or proposed itself, I forget which) as our savior for dealing with 2257, I won't support this. Here's why:

1. Probably within the next 5 years this industry will create a professional association both to set standards for and protect the interests of "legitimate" webmasters. It may take another 5 years for such an association to become fairly effective, but it will happen because it's an inevitable development of any maturing industry. And the sooner it happens, the better. My main objection to groups formed to deal with specific issues is that if they work they may postpone the day we finally create the body we really need, by reducing the perception of that need. If they fail to acheive whatever their objectives are, they make people more cynical than they are anyway and again make it harder to float the concept of that broader body.
2. On and off the 'net my experience is entirely negative when it comes to enthusiastic first reactions to issues which bother people. Passion is all well and good, it is a necessary part of anything which is likely to be an uphill struggle. But there is a world of difference between instant emotional responses and the kind of long-term committment which most things of this kind need.
3. As soon as someone asks more than the broadest of questions (such as "Would anyone be interested in talking about a group to deal with...?"), the perception shifts from that of an association of and for its members, to that of an organisation headed by the speaker. That dramatically reduces the chance of acceptance, because even if the speaker plans to hand over the reins as soon as the thing is under way, people are going to raise questions about trust, etc, etc. Particularly in an environment which makes real personal contact and knowledge difficult, that credibility gap is unlikely to be closed.

I don't doubt this thread is well-intentioned and I wish you luck. But in the same way that failed attempts to quit smoking make it harder to believe subsequent attempts will succeed, it is important at this stage of our industry that anything we do like this must have a very good chance of being successful. So far I don't see the signs that this fits the bill.