🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug25.140249.3686@spcvxb.spc.edu> killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu 
	(Jeff Killeen) writes:
>Subject: Re: Membership fee for DECUS?
>From: killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen)
>Date: 25 Aug 92 18:02:49 GMT

>There is a concern that there really are two classes of members...
	...
>Remember the design objective is to split the membership list based on how each 
>member sees themselves - a membership fee is just a suggested tool.  Trust 
>there are many many good reasons why spliting the list is goodness - if for no 
>other reason to get rid of dartboard voting.

	My information is about 4 years old, and many of my views are 
uninformed by current discussion, but I do have some different perpectives 
to share.  [I think Jeff knows me well enough to read the following with a 
smile!]

	The nominal membership of DECUS/US is about 50K.  The real 
membership is about 25-30K.  The audits we implemented (six years ago or so) 
were never fully implemented to trim the mailing list as we had intended.  
If a major goal is to save mailing costs and trees, DECUS could just 
eliminate the mailing-list names of inactive members -- and tighten the 
definition of "inactive".  (I'd now fall into that category, I think.)

	Customers pay for services, and the fees include overhead for DECUS 
operations.  So they pay for "membership" through purchases.  No purchases, 
no membership (i.e., they get trimmed from the list after a couple of 
years of inactivity).  Or, no newsletter/library contributions, they get 
trimmed (i.e., they are neither contributing nor using DECUS resources, so 
they are probably uninterested; reinstate upon request).

	I think it is a mistake to believe that dividing the mailing list 
into customers vs. members will fix the crapshoot election process (for 
those who don't understand the term: DECUS elections are a crapshoot, 
because those voting are generally not sufficiently well informed about the 
issues or the candidates' positions to make intelligent choices, thus the 
election results reflect popularity, publicity, innuendo, etc., rather than 
considered choices by the electorate -- at least, that's what the term 
means; decide for yourself if that view is correct).

	I suggest that the next Board election include the candidate's 
position on this membership-fee issue, in bold type, on their abstracts.  
Lest you mistake my view, I don't think there is a free lunch anywhere, and 
certainly not in DECUS.  But I do think that anyone using DECUS products 
pays for DECUS overhead (which used to include raw materials, mailings, 
leadership travel, etc., but not DECUS staff or facilities).  Adding an 
explict fee seems unnecessary and unreasonable.  I think the electorate will 
tell the Board so if they're given a chance.

	If the problem is wasted trees and money for mailings that don't 
interest people, solve that problem.  If the problem is an uninformed 
electorate, solve that problem.  I don't think DECUS needs membership fees 
to solve either problem.  It does need a consistent and coherent strategy 
for funding, for representation, and for effective management.  Membership 
fees might be part of the solution for the first and last, but not for the 
representation issue.

	Thanks for listening (if you're still there).

					David Todd
					DECUS old-timer

[Hi, Jeff.  Yes, I do still read comp.org.decus.  Hello to everyone!]