YES: DAVID BECK, chief executive, Guideposts Trust
If two codes mean more charities are promoting good practice, surely that can only be a good thing.
We all have an interest in promoting best practice in fundraising, so we should also have a say in the type of organisation we want to work with to achieve this. Quite a few organisations and fundraisers have not joined and are not prepared to join the FRSB because it is currently funded and structured with such an authoritarian 'big-stick' approach.
The Good Fundraising Code offers a cost-effective, supportive body for fundraisers to work with, which is why a growing number of charities are joining it.
The argument that the public will be confused by two codes is, in my view, quite erroneous. Donors are not stupid. Choice is not a difficult concept to explain, particularly if there is only one other option.
Until now, many fundraisers have chosen to do nothing rather than join the FRSB. Surely an alternative for them can only be beneficial.
NO: LARRY BOYD, communications officer, Tools for Self Reliance
We shouldn't need a membership body to hold us to our commitments. But if we have to have one, it should be the Fundraising Standards Board. We don't need a new code that is an edited version of an existing one.
The FRSB has so far been a typical populist government initiative: too much money and too little support, too much talking at us and too little working with us got it off to a rocky start.
But if it becomes a credible public body that holds errant fundraisers to account, this will help build trust and confidence in fundraising. And gaining and holding the trust of the public has never been more of a challenge than it is today.
Any organisation that brings fundraisers together to help share best practice with a declaration of transparency and honesty to donors has to be a good thing. But surely we don't have to show that we belong to a membership body to win people's trust any more than we have to be Christians to lead a morally responsible life.