🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep2.142027@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug26.140651.5007@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
>(Barone) writes:
>
>I don't personally have a problem with paying, I think my company would spring
>for it. As far as paying to vote, as long as the elections basically are a
>crapshoot, who would? I don't see voting as a major enticement to get people to
>pay. I'm also not real sure people would pay for DECUScope. With the newsletters
>gone, what else can you charge money for? If you are going to ask for money, you
>are going to have to offer a tangible benefit that will make sense to the bean
>counters, or _many_ people will have trouble paying for it, no matter how low
>the cost, or how great the intangible benefits.
>
>If this is just to make up a revenue shortfall, it'd probably be better to raise
>prices on existing services. That's at least honest. If it is to generate new
>revenue, what would that revenue be used for, and why can't those activities
>generate revenue another way? If this is just to trim the mailing list, I think
>it's a poor way to do it. An audit of some sort would be better. If the last
>audit wasn't satisfactory (I'm guessing, since it wasn't used), that doesn't
>invalidate the whole approach.

Terry,

	From the discussions I've been a part of it boils down to the following
points:

	1) Claims are made that Symposium fees are too high

	2) Symposium (and its related items) are the major source for DECUS
	   operating funds (at least when Symp. does not lose money, then it 
	   is the bank accounts)


	The *theory* is that if we had a membership fee than the Symposium fee
would only have to cover the cost of preparing for it, putting it on, and a
truely modest profit for future insurance (i.e. when thing go wrong and
a Symposium losses money).  The other products (library, session notes, audio 
tapes, DECUServe would/could also run with having to make less profit).  And
the membership fee could be used for:

	1) LUGS
	2) DECUScope
	3) General Overhead (Board, MC, NLC)

	This would allow DECUS to either lower the current fees are at least
not raise them as much as we would normally have to do.

	They maybe some other general overhead things or other points that I
can't recall.  BTW, I made this proposal back before the fee increases of 1990
(if my memory serves me right) in a DCS notes conference (either BOD or MC, I
can't remeber which).  I have not seen many recent DCS notes on the topic.

==========================================================================
* Gerald W. Lester                        !   Voice:  (504)-889-2784     *
* Computerized Processes Unlimited        !   FAX:    (504)-889-2799     *
* 4200 S. I-10 Service Road, Suite #205   !   E-Mail: gwl@cpu.com        *
* Metairie, LA  70001                     !                              *
==========================================================================

P.S. - Trival time!!

1)	Before about '85 DECUS had a voting and non-voting members, anyone
	remember what they were called and when we changed?

2)	What was the last year in which three (3) national symposium were held?