Commenting on the new non-profit status of RHIZOME [see "<a
href="/cgi/to.cgi?t=1096">Art
Site Takes Plunge</a>" in the RHIZOME CONTENTBASE, 4.7.98], robbin
murphy wrote:

Even though retooled, the plan for RHIZOME still sounds like a business
plan, what with publishing projects and all that are meant to be (at
least theoretically) profitable. This sounds like a good way to sustain
the project but also puts RHIZOME in direct competition with other
for-profit ventures with their status a possible unfair advantage.

RHIZOME creative director mark tribe replied:

a nonprofit, like a for-profit enterprise, is a business. the difference
is that it's purpose is to serve a community, not to enrich its owners.
even nonprofits have to generate revenues to pay the bills. and even
nonprofits have to compete for market share in a competitive
environment. so it should come as no surprise that RHIZOME has a
business plan. the notion that nonprofit status puts RHIZOME in direct
competition with for-profit ventures is nonsensical. RHIZOME was more
directly in competion with for-profit ventures when it was itself
for-profit. now, RHIZOME is competing for scarce resources (grant money,
etc.) with other nonprofits. it's a competitive world.

robbin misuses the word "profitable" when he describes our plans. our
intention is not to generate profits, but to generate revenues that help
cover costs–to break even, but not to turn a profit. grants are
revenues. individual contributions are revenues. corporate sponsorships
are revenues. and book royalties are also revenues. our plan is to
continue to serve the community by remaining focused on doing what we do
well, to expand our services gradually, and to break even every year.

robbin murphy wrote:

There are a great many conditions to be met for not-for-profit status,
one of the most problematic being political involvement. Would there be
a "chilling effect" on posts about current copyright, encryption and
domain name legislation or partisanship for the Zapatistas?

mark tribe replied:

my understanding is that nonprofits can't support candidates or
otherwise engage in political process, but that there is no limitation
on publishing the political speech (even partisan political speech) of
third parties. i would be VERY surprised if being nonprofit resulted in
pressure to depoliticize. on the contrary, now that we're an independent
nonprofit, we don't have to worry as much about a much more problematic
form of editorial control: the blurring of the line between editorial
and marketing copy.

robbin murphy:

RHIZOME provides a balance to nettime and I would like to see more
discussion about how Geert and Pit et al do it beyond the "gift economy"
explanation and how RHIZOME may differ both philosophically and in its
results. Both are in the position of being "without borders" yet still
operate within the constraints of local customs and laws. Both lists
(and archives) are moderated and so are creating the documentation that
will define this period. How do these filtering methods differ and how
does that difference effect the documentation?

mark tribe:

this, to me, is the most interesting question robbin raises. our
filtering methods have mostly to do with finding relevance to new media
art, design and technology. if it's not relevant, we don't include it in
the CONTENTBASE. i don't know how nettime filters, but it seems to me
that they focus less on art, more on politics, criticism and theory.

the question, of course, is how we decide what's relevant. do we cast a
wide net, or focus narrowly on a particular set of concerns? our general
rule is that, if there's a clear connection to new media art, design or
technology, it's relevant. if we can't find a clear connection, it
doesn't get beyond RAW [which is unfiltered].

i agree that nettime and RHIZOME are, in effect, writing histories of
this moment, and that our editorial practices thus have long-range
consequences. it should be noted that both nettime and RHIZOME represent
relatively heterogeneous communities and give access to multiple agendas
and perspectives, thus producing a complex and challenging historical
record for the future.