I believe this question is very much on the Corporation / seneschalate / 
mundane business side of the Society, and as such is completely outside the 
Coronet's purview.  That stipulated, I know there are people who think the 
Coronet's opinion is still relevant, so I'll tell you.
<p>
I feel, strongly, that the "pay to play" name is both too flip and a grave 
misnomer to boot: regardless of membership, we pay to attend almost every 
event anyway [see next question for a completely different facet of this], 
and it is that money which pays for our "play".  Anyone who comes to an event 
and pays the site fee, even if not a paid member, is "playing"; someone who 
sends in their money and gets a membership card, but doesn't come to events, 
isn't.  Money sent to Milpitas doesn't get the feast cooked, the music 
played, or the pots scrubbed.  The "play" depends entirely on local money and 
local volunteer labor.
<p>
Which is not to say the Corporation has absolutely no merits: local money 
doesn't pay for insurance, and volunteer labor won't save us from a lawsuit.  
On the other hand, there are other organizational models that can address 
these concerns.  Add to that the secretive, deceitful, and patronizing way in 
which the Board acted in making that decision, and I take rather a dim and 
skeptical view of mandatory membership (my name for the policy).
<p>
That's my opinion.  It's a strong one, but it's personal.  Again I emphasize 
that, were I Baron, my opinion would not be any more pertinent than that of 
other Carolingians.
