🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug26.103456.3697@spcvxb.spc.edu> killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) writes:

>        Most believe the election process is a "crapshoot".  I believe a major 
>part of the motivation for splitting the list is it may be cost achievable to 
>then do a voter education program.

Jeff,

	I'm one who also believes that the elections are a crapshoot.  But 
(damn, always the educator!), I think it's better to a) try to develop an 
informed electorate and b) trust that those actually elected rise to the 
tasks at hand.  [And I've been surprised how often and fast the turkeys who 
get elected grow into responsible individuals!]  Though these are trying 
times, I still believe in the republican form of government.

	If cost of educating the electorate is the major issue, trim the 
mailing list.  I never understood why it was not done in the past (and 
yes, I think I was supposed to be responsible for it!), but it may have had 
to do with wanting to keep the nominal membership count high, either for 
Digital or for public posturing.  If DECUS is considering other mechanisms 
to trim the membership mailing list, then why not just start with the one at 
hand: use the audit results as originally intended and drop those who don't 
respond to the audit card or haven't purchased a product in two years.  If 
past statistics hold, the membership list would drop to 25K to 30K, from 
50K.  Not a bad return on the investment (which would be nearly zero).  

	I would think that DECUS would be mighty embarassed if it imposed a 
membership fee and membership dropped to 2000.  That would not be an 
accurate reflection of the interest in DECUS or Digital, but it might be an 
accurate reflection of corporate policies and disposable individual incomes 
right now. 

	I don't like to see policy based on tactics rather than strategies.  
The membership fee idea seems motivated by tactics.  I hope the membership 
get a chance to say what they think directly.