I was remiss in sharing the March Quakers Today podcast, which looked at Quakers, Birds, and Justice. Friends have long been especially interested in the natural world. One of the interviewees is Rebecca Heider, who wrote A Quaker Guide to Birdwatching in last month’s issue of FJ.

Google+: View post on Google+

Embedded Link

It’s official: South Sudan a new country
South Sudan took a seat at the world’s table early Saturday as citizens of the new country took to the streets to celebrate.

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

She points to a sad decline both in yearly meetings affiliated with Friends United Meeting and in those affiliated with Friends General Conference. A curiosity is that this decline is not seen in three of the four yearly meetings that are dual affiliated. These blended yearly meetings are going through various degrees of identity crisis and hand-wringing over their status and yet their own membership numbers are strong. Could it be that serious theological wrestling and complicated spiritual identities create healthier religious bodies than monocultural groupings?

The big news is in the south: “Hispanic Friends Churches” in Mexico and Central America are booming, with spillover in el Norte as workers move north to get jobs. There’s surprisingly little interaction between these newly-arrived Spanish-speaking Friends and the the old Main Line Quaker establishment (maybe not surprising really, but still sad). I’ll leave you with a challenge Margaret gives readers:

One question that often puzzles me is why so many Hispanic Friends
congregations are meeting in churches belonging to other denominations.
I would love to see established Friends meetings with their own
property sharing space with Hispanic Friends. It would be an
opportunity to share growth and challenges together.

Via 37Signal’s Signals vs. Noise blog I came across a fascinating post written by Brian Fling of Blue last year on pricing a project. I’d like to talk about it and to explain my own philosophy. First a extended quote from Brian:

I find it funny… in a sad sort of way, that we often
start out our partnership with bluffing, no one saying what they are
really thinking… how much they are willing to pay and how much it
should cost… Though every book I’ve read on the topic of pricing says
to never ever ballpark, I have a tendency to do so. If they can’t
disclose the budget I typically try to start throwing a few numbers
from previous projects to help gauge the scope of what we are talking
about, call it a good faith effort to start the discussion… While this
is very awkward part of the discussion it is almost always followed by
candor. It’s as if once someone starts telling the truth, it opens a
door that can’t be closed.

I completely agree that candor is the only way to work with clients.
Maybe it’s the Quaker influence: we reportedly pioneered fixed pricing
back when everyone haggled, with the philosophy that charging true
costs were the only honest way of doing business. My official rates and contact page includes my list of “typical costs” — essentially these are the “ballpark estimates” that Brian talks about.

When I put together estimates I base it on my best-guess informed
estimates. I start by tabulating the client’s requested features and
determining how I’ll achieve them. I then estimate how long it will
take me to implement each feature and use that to determine a
first-guess for project cost. I then compare it to past projects, to
make sure I’m being realistic. I know myself well enough to know I
always want to underestimate costs–I usually like the project and want
to make it affordable to clients!–so I do force myself a reality check
that usually ends up adding a few hours to the estimate.

When I put together my official estimate I try to guess where
potential bottlenecks might happen. Sometimes these are technical
issues and something they’re more social. For example, a client might
be very particular about the design and the back-and-forth can take
longer than expected. If I think anything like this might happen I
mention it in the estimate. Sometimes as we work through the details of
a feature I’ll learn that the client wants some enhancement that we
hadn’t talked about previously and which I didn’t factor into the
estimate.

When I do see a particular part of the work taking longer than
expected I flag it with the client. I try to keep them informed that
this will add to total costs. In many cases, clients have been happy to
go with the extra work: I simply want to make sure that we both are
aware that the estimate is changing before the work happens.

I charge by the hour rather than on a per-project basis since I find
it to be a much more open business model. Brian Fling’s post agrees:

The problem [with per-project billing is that] one way
or another somebody loses, either the client pays too much, meaning
paying more than it’s market value, or the vendor eats into their
profit… One benefits to hourly billing is the client is responsible for
increases of scope, protecting the vendor and the customer. If the
project is completed early the client pays less, protecting the client.
This puts the onus on both parties to communicate regularly and work
more effectively.

I have very little overhead: a home office, laptop and DSL.
This means my rates are very competitive (one client described it as
“less than plumbers and electricians charge, more than the kid who mows
the lawn”). Being very careful with estimates mean that I often
communicate a lot with clients before I “start the clock.” I’ve often
worked with them a few hours before the estimate is in and we’re moving
forward and of course some of this un-billed work doesn’t result in a
job.

Putting together fabulous websites is fun work. It’s very much a
back-and-forth process with clients, and it’s often impossible to know
just what the site will look like and just how it will work until the
site actually launches. Half of my clientele have never had websites
before, making the work even more interesting! It’s my professional
responsibility to make sure I work with clients to foresee costs, dream
big, but most of all to be open and honest about costs as the process
unfolds.

The Arch Street Meetinghouse grounds are also a cemetery. In about ten years time we can raze the meetinghouse for more headstones and in about twenty years time we can have a big party where we cash out the yearly meeting funds and just burn them in a big bonfire (there’s a fire station across the street), formally laying down Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. The fifteen of us who are left can go attach ourselves to some other yearly meeting.

This year’s annual sessions continue their tradition of self-parody: the featured speakers are the umpteenth gray-hair professional Quaker talking about the peace testimony and a psychologist who appears on NPR. It’s safe to assume neither will stray beyond the mildest communities of faith talk to mention God, gospel order or naming of gifts, and that neither will ask why there’s almost no one under forty involved in the yearly meeting. The last time I went to a nominating committee workshop at annual sessions, members openly explained to me why Friends under forty couldn’t serve on committees. Later during that session we learned the average new attender was in their thirties yet the yearly meeting clerk didn’t think it was appropriate than any Friend under fifty comment on that (about 40 older Friends were recognized to share their thoughts, natch).

The generational freefall is coming to the yearly meeting. Arch Street Meeting is smack in the middle of one of the premier hip young neighborhoods of Philadelphia yet they’ve been resistant to doing any serious outreach or adult religious ed (I could tell stories: don’t get me started). This weekend I learned that the other downtown meeting, Central Philadelphia, continues its practice–almost policy–of not supporting emerging ministry in long-time young attenders (I could really tell stories). I wouldn’t be surprised if Philadelphia has the lowest per-capita yearly meeting attendance.

So why not just admit that the yearly meeting is irrelevant to younger Friends? Why not turn our meetinghouses into retirement homes?

PS: How I wish I weren’t so cynical about the yearly meeting. I don’t want to feel like it’s a state of all-out generational warfare. I’ve tried, really I have. I’m even willing to try again. But no where have I found a space to have these discussions, at yearly meeting or anywhere else. Other Phila. YM Friends concerned with these issues are welcome to email me–maybe we can figure out some forum for this either inside or outside of the official structures.
PPS: There are a lot of wonderful Friends involved with the yearly meeting. They have good ideas and sincerely try to make it a more welcoming place. The best part of the yearly meeting sessions I’ve attended have been the unexpected conversations. It’s the institution I am frustrated with: the sense that it’s bigger and dumber than all of us.
PPPS: What if I took my own words to heart and considered a PhYM renewal as part of the fifty-year plan? If I just stopped complaining and just attended patiently and faithfully year after year for those “teachable moments” that might inch it forward?