On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 spencer at mail.tcopensys.com wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:25:19PM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Neal wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I am <not> going to give anyone the benefit of my knowledge of and experience in
> >>
> <snip>
> >I still favor co-op. It seems the correct model for the project.
> hear here.
> 
> Although I may very well be wrong, becoming a legitamite
> co-op may be just as difficult and time consuming as becoming a NPO.  I
> would like to see the group solidify more on a "mission statement"
> before we decide how we are going to be treated in the real-world.
> 
> I think we have to decide who and what we are before we decide 'how' we
> are.

Quite, but part of the Non-Profit Corporation vs. Co-op decision is
exactly that. What are we setting out to do here, what is a fair enough
way to share the risks/rewards among the participants, and how do we keep
non-participants from coming in and raining on our parade?

What we are setting out to do is set up a wireless infrastructure that will
be useful and interesting to the members of TCWUG, to be composed of
links, hotspots, and uplinks as available and necessary.

The other two questions seem to be the major topic of conversation
on the list over the last couple of weeks, so:

I propose that setting up the TCWUG WWAN be done by the TCWUG as a 
cooperative business entity. This provides cost dispersal (we would
each contribute to the TCWUG/WWAN in cash and/or PIK for the privilege
of access to the WWAN) and a clear means for risk/reward sharing.