Actually, I'm pretty careful with who I send "donation" money to, so the suggestion that if Max wishes to be supported by donations (whether for or not for profit), doesn't fall on deaf ears with me. IMO, it is never a a bad idea to give some sort of accountability information in these sorts of endeavors--which Max could do on the front page of Mudcat. Just some basic info as to how his program here works, what donations go towards, some explanation of how much the operating costs are per year, that sort of stuff. Nothing substantial, but just informational in a friendly way. My guess is newcomers and occassional users of the site would be encouraged rather that discouraged to donate that way.

While I understand the feeling of loyalty and appreciation to Max the regulars feel, it isn't realistic to think that the regulars are financially sustaining the Mudcat endeavor, if I understand operating costs for sites like this at all. Which means, if Max is to be able to do this long-term, other financial strategies (than the goodwill donations) will need to be initiated to continue to pay the operating costs of the site.

It is one thing to run a site on goodwill, which is what Max does with Mudcat apparently. It is another thing entirely to try and run a site with sales, donations, memberships, etc. That does take accounting, and if you are going to do the latter, it is only reasonable for member/donors to be given a reasonable accounting of how the money gets spent on a regular basis, just as a matter of good business practice. Nothing will sink an endeavor faster than mistrust of management in these sorts of "friendly" circumstances where the relationship between member/donor and recipient isn't well defined. Both sides become suspicious of one another's motives, and it is all downhill from there.

These are difficult issues for Mudcat folk, I know. On the one hand, Max has gotten by on the goodwill of his regulars. Apparently. We don't really know what percent of Mudcat donations covers what percent of the operating expenses. To suggest (in absolutist terms) that either Max provide a complete accounting, or no accounting whatsoever, seems to be missing the point.

If users want to both see the site succeed, and help it to do that through donations and contributions, IMO, it isn't unreasonable to request an accounting of some sort. Not an IRS audit sort of accounting, but at least an overview of expenses, assets, operating costs, income, etc. is reasonable if people are interested in long term financial viability and wish to contribute to it.

If Max is applying for non-profit status, he is required to provide all that by law anyway, as someone said--but not until he actually gets the status. So if he hasn't gone through the process of putting all the financials on paper yet for the application, it could be premature to suggest he provide his donors with an accounting, since it is all "goodwill" donations at this point.

But if Max does get the non-profit status, I think it wise for the information to be in some easily obtainable form for member/donors who are interested in donating to a financially viable organization, and not throwing good money after bad. Just another opinion.

BTW, I realize the guest who refreshed the thread is being confrontational. But that doesn't mean that a reasonable debate over the issue can't take place, does it? Or does it? Are some of the Mudcat members (and perhaps Max too) a little to defensive on this subject? That is what it looks like to me after a complete reading of the thread.

Openness and honesty are always good business practices. Putting the information out there is one very good way of taking the wind out of one's adversaries arguments of this sort.