🚀 go-pugleaf

In <53@quark.ansto.gov.au> frank@iris.ansto.gov.au (Frank Crawford) writes:

>In article <1992Mar13.040211.11451@DIALix.oz.au> abcc@DIALix.oz.au (Adrian Booth Computing Consultants) writes:
>>In <1992Mar10.005300.26091@megadata.uucp> andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au (Andrew McRae) writes:

>>AUUG seems to be turning from being a technical UNIX group to an
>>"Open Systems" marketing group.

>I'd also like to know what on what evidence you claim we are a marketing
>group?  What is all this marketing we are doing?  (You may well claim
>we are not handling the technical side too well, but that is a different
>matter.)

I suppose my impression of AUUG has been strongly influenced by AUUG'91,
which seemed to be purely a marketing exercise for almost all involved.
Given the recent President's Report - "Grow or die", etcetra -
it seems that AUUG is firmly committed to using marketing and advertising
to increase its membership, instead of offering benefits which would
in themselves encourage people to join.

An example. I didn't join my local automobile association so I could
get regular newsletters about the latest cars on the market, or attend
conferences consisting of "ra ra" talks by the Marketing Directors of
Holden, Ford, Toyota, etc. I joined it solely because the benefits it
provides outweigh the cost of membership - up to date roadmaps,
tourist information, breakdown service. If it didn't provide these
services, but merely advertised heavily "Join the only true *national*
automobile association", I wouldn't join - and I expect you wouldn't
either. Unfortunately, AUUG currently seems to be following the latter
path, which is why I didn't renew my membership for 1992.

>I don't see how you can claim that two (count them, Pat and Rolf)
>members of the committee have turned us into a marketing group.  Both
>certainly have a different perspective, but then no two members have
>quite the same opinion on most matters.  Then again, that may be the
>real seat of the problem, the six "non-marketing" members (I'm not
>sure how you would categorise Peter Karr), have differing opinions on
>what we want to offer members.

If all of the committee members have differing ideas on what the
membership want (which leads to almost nothing being provided),
why not ask the membership?

>The committee takes note of any comments by the members (whether on paper
>or in bytes).  However critical comments with no suggested actions is
>soon forgotten, whereas concrete (and practical) suggestions will usually
>get some consideration.
 
Two simple suggestions I would make are:
 
1. Provide seed capital so local groups can establish a technical library.
2. Have AUUGN actively chase permission to reprint papers given at
        USENIX and similar conferences.
 
Again, as was pointed out to me by another AUUG committee member,
not all committee members have net news access; not all of them read
their news regularly; there is no way of being sure that *any* news posting
makes it to the committee for discussion at its meetings.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Adrian Booth					|	                  |
 | Adrian Booth Computing Consultants		|	Ph: (09) 385 1003 |
 | 1/83 Bay View Tce., Claremont WA 6010	|	abcc@DIALix.oz.au |
 | AUSTRALIA                                    |                         |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------