🚀 go-pugleaf

               <<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.128                The DECUS reorganization                  128 of 131
EISNER::KOZAM                                        60 lines  30-APR-1991 23:42
                          -< View from the bottom up >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I write as one of the masses - an active participant for 10 years,
but never a committee member or involved in DECUS management.  I've
benefitted greatly from DECUS  - the Software Library, various
symposia (once as a speaker), an active LUG, the SIG newsletters, and
DECUServe.

	Until reading this thread, I have been completely ignorant of
the management structure of DECUS - I didn't even know that MC stood for
Management Council.  The distance between active DECUS members and the
leadership is very large.

	As a novice, I have several questions and a few impressions.

	1.  What problem(s) prompted the Arthur D. Little (ADL)
	reorganization proposal?  From a user's perspective, everything
        seemed to be working pretty well.  Is there some concensus as
	what the problems have been and to what the goals are?

	2.  I had never realized the extent to which politics surround
        DECUS.  There seems to be a lot of hostility in these notes.
        Much energy is consumed by politics and power struggles.  I
        used to believe that the leadership was made of primarily
        altruistic people who wanted to help the society advance, to
        the benefit of all members.  Does the leadership actually have
        an alternate agenda?  Can any reorganization reverse this so
        that the leadership is once again interested in the needs of
        the rank and file?

	3.  There seems to be an impression that the DECUS membership
	is uninformed and unqualified to vote.  I've just finished
	spending many hours reading the thousands of lines posted
	here.  I barely understand the most basic issues involved.
	I want to become informed, but if that takes hundreds of
	hours, then I need not apply.

	4.  I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
	user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
	heart.  #3 above has made me feel alienated.  #2 makes
	me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
	the corporation, with me a mere customer.  Is the new bottom
	line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
	degree to which the needs of the membership are served?
	I think back a few years when the topic of making the software
	library on-line was first brought up.  The discussion revolved
	not around whether this would be of benefit to DECUS members,
	but rather, the degree to which it would reduce the
	profitability of the Software Library.  An organization that
        is responsive to the needs of its members will be financially
        sound.  An organization that is unresponsive will find that it
        has no members and the issue of financial status becomes
        irrelevant.

        5.  Does ADL really understand DECUS?  I suspect that few of
        ADL's customers are similar to DECUS.  DECUS is a volunteer
        organization.  Members are geographically disperse.  The
        degree of organization of the membership is loose.  How has
        ADL taken those special characteristics into account?

	Regardless of the final vote, my view of DECUS is very
different.
================================================================================
Note 340.129                The DECUS reorganization                  129 of 131
EISNER::LEDERMAN "Bart Z. Lederman"                 164 lines   1-MAY-1991 07:35
                        -< Your view is very helpful. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       <<< Note 340.128 by EISNER::KOZAM >>>
|                           -< View from the bottom up >-
| 
| 	I write as one of the masses - an active participant for 10 years,
| but never a committee member or involved in DECUS management.  I've

    As a sort-of middle level DECUS person (I'm a SIG Library
    representative) I would like to give my comments.

| 	Until reading this thread, I have been completely ignorant of
| the management structure of DECUS - I didn't even know that MC stood for
| Management Council.  The distance between active DECUS members and the
| leadership is very large.

    I suspect that's true of a lot of members.  And as long as DECUS
    Leadership (however you define it) is doing it's job, that shouldn't
    matter.  It ought to be possible to be a participant in DECUS without
    having to bet involved in leadership if you don't want to.

    There are some groups within DECUS which are concerned about the
    distance between DECUS members and leadership.  Unfortunately, closing
    that gap often depends on members telling leadership where the problems
    are, but if they aren't familiar with leadership they might not know
    whom to inform.  If you can give me any suggestions on how to get
    around this problem I'd be happy to pass them on.

| 	1.  What problem(s) prompted the Arthur D. Little (ADL)
| 	reorganization proposal?  From a user's perspective, everything
|         seemed to be working pretty well.  Is there some consensus as
| 	what the problems have been and to what the goals are?

    The reorganization seems to have been driven mostly from the board
    level.  There have been some disagreements between the Board and MC,
    and a way to correct those problems is needed.  Another problem is the
    one you mentioned: the gap between 'members' and 'leadership': but that
    seems to have been lost in the dust.

    There is no consensus at all about what the problem is and what the
    cure should be.  My impression is that most of the operational unit
    people (the services you mentioned, Symposia, Library, LUGS, etc.) are
    happy with the current organization, and are doing their job.  I'm sure
    they'll be happy to hear a user say that the services are getting
    through.  To a lot of people, this indicates that the current structure
    is basically sound.  But a few people at the top (i.e., the Board of
    Directors) apparently don't agree.

| 	2.  I had never realized the extent to which politics surround
|         DECUS.  There seems to be a lot of hostility in these notes.
|         Much energy is consumed by politics and power struggles.  I
|         used to believe that the leadership was made of primarily
|         altruistic people who wanted to help the society advance, to
|         the benefit of all members.  Does the leadership actually have
|         an alternate agenda?  Can any reorganization reverse this so
|         that the leadership is once again interested in the needs of
|         the rank and file?

    I believe that most of leadership is in fact primarily concerned with
    just making the society run.  You have not seen any of the messages on
    DCS from various members of leadership who are basically saying "enough
    already, lets drop this and get back to work".  There were also calls
    for a cooling-off period before deciding on the changes, as many people
    didn't see any reason to rush into this.  But they didn't get anywhere.

    As for a hidden agenda: I'm willing to believe that the original
    motivation of the BoD members was to improve the society, but now I'm
    not so sure anymore.  One of the problems is that most of the BoD
    members who supported the change, including the president, won't talk
    to us anymore.  You just can't get a straight answer from any of them. 
    The only one who'll talk to us is Tom Provost, and he didn't run for
    re-election so he won't be on the BoD if the changes go through.

    I don't think the proposed reorganization will change any of this. 
    Many people believe the new structure will put even more power into the
    hands of fewer people, which would be worse from the hidden agenda
    point of view.  But there isn't even any consensus on that.

    The only thing which could make a change is changing the members of the
    BoD and MC (if there still is one).

| 	3.  There seems to be an impression that the DECUS membership
| 	is uninformed and unqualified to vote.  I've just finished
| 	spending many hours reading the thousands of lines posted
| 	here.  I barely understand the most basic issues involved.
| 	I want to become informed, but if that takes hundreds of
| 	hours, then I need not apply.

    I sure hope there are a lot of DECUS members like you out there,
    whatever the outcome of the vote.  Unfortunately, a lot of people
    believe that the small amount of information sent with the ballot is
    not going to be enough to make an informed decision.  Most DECUS
    members don't read these notes on DECUServe (don't have accounts), and
    many in leadership think that DECUS members who aren't familiar with the
    leadership structure as you weren't aren't going to know enough about
    what's going on, and are not going to read dozens of pages of
    background material.  I hope we're wrong about this, but considering
    how few people even vote for the President of the United States,
    getting people involved in a DECUS election seems a difficult task.

| 	4.  I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
| 	user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
| 	heart.  #3 above has made me feel alienated.  #2 makes
| 	me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
| 	the corporation, with me a mere customer.  Is the new bottom
| 	line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
| 	degree to which the needs of the membership are served?

    I believe that most leadership people view the goal of DECUS is to
    share information, and work actively to that end.  I hope the current
    difficulty is a temporary aberration.

| 	I think back a few years when the topic of making the software
| 	library on-line was first brought up.  The discussion revolved
| 	not around whether this would be of benefit to DECUS members,
| 	but rather, the degree to which it would reduce the
| 	profitability of the Software Library.  An organization that
|         is responsive to the needs of its members will be financially
|         sound.  An organization that is unresponsive will find that it
|         has no members and the issue of financial status becomes
|         irrelevant.

    The issue of benefit to the members is always present.  But somebody
    has to pay to keep things running.  Computers and sites and operators
    don't come for free.  It's unfortunate that the issue of an on-line
    library would be seen publicly as an issue about dollars, but I can
    assure you that a group of dedicated volunteer leaders kept pushing on
    this until something got done.  The result is that we now have
    DECUShare running as a demonstration on this system and you can
    down-load software right now.  But behind all of the services you use
    (Symposia, LUGS, Library, and this system) leadership has to be
    concerned with who pays to keep it running: a fact of life most leaders
    are willing to tackle to achieve the end goal of service to the
    membership.

    I agree that an unresponsive leadership would lead to the demise of the
    society.

|         5.  Does ADL really understand DECUS?  I suspect that few of
|         ADL's customers are similar to DECUS.  DECUS is a volunteer
|         organization.  Members are geographically disperse.  The
|         degree of organization of the membership is loose.  How has
|         ADL taken those special characteristics into account?

    My impression, from seeing the ADL presentation, is that they did grasp
    some aspects of DECUS, and they did point out some real problems with
    the society.  But by no stretch of the imagination did they
    really understand the entire problem.  But one of the big problems a
    lot of leadership has with the reorganization is that ADL didn't
    (wasn't allowed) to explain what they did or how they came to their
    recommendations.  So a lot of us believe that we don't really know what
    ADL was thinking.  One thing I do know: one of the two ADL people who
    did the report mentioned that he had been president of a college
    alumni organization.  I got the impression that he was basing his
    proposed structure on that kind of organization, which would not suit
    DECUS at all.  But as I said, a lot of us really aren't certain that
    ADL got the 'big picture'.

| 	Regardless of the final vote, my view of DECUS is very
| different.

    That may be unfortunate.  I hope you will pass your views on to
    leadership: of course, with this note you have already done so to a
    considerable extent.  I hope others will be willing to take the time to
    let their views be known.  That's the best way to have a positive
    affect on DECUS.
================================================================================
Note 340.130                The DECUS reorganization                  130 of 131
EISNER::KILGALLEN "Larry Kilgallen"                  31 lines   1-MAY-1991 08:10
                        -< Answer from the outside in >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                       <<< Note 340.128 by EISNER::KOZAM >>>
>                           -< View from the bottom up >-
> 
> 	4.  I used to feel that DECUS was my organization, and as a
> 	user of DEC products, I felt that DECUS had my interests at
> 	heart.  #3 above has made me feel alienated.  #2 makes
> 	me feel that the leadership views themselves as directors of
> 	the corporation, with me a mere customer.  Is the new bottom
> 	line the expansion of DECUS for its own sake or is it the
> 	degree to which the needs of the membership are served?

DECUS _is_ your organization.  If you find some group within DECUS not
responding to your volunteering, it is surely due to disorganization
rather than malice.  If some volunteer power gets lost in the shuffle,
it is just one of the inefficiencies of our volunteer economy.  Another
aspect of people working together is that sometimes feelings get hurt.

Now there is a segment of the DECUS membership who seem to have lost an
interest in the computer aspects of DECUS.  They spend all their time
_organizing_.  These are the people who are so motivated about which way
the committees are arranged.  Although they spend a lot of DECUS money
doing this rearranging, it is not at all clear that this money would be
used for other things if not for the DECUS bureaucracy.  Who would decide
what it would get spent on?  Who would argue that it shouldn't go back to
DEC?  Think of the money being wasted on committee rearrangement as being
kind of like taxes -- It gives you somebody to whom you can complain when
DECUS messes up.

So Technical contributions are still welcome (DECUServe is a good example).
If Technical exchange is not your preference, DECUS also runs a debating
society on the side.