🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <576@bigmax.UUCP>, folsom@bigmax.UUCP (Al Folsom) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.192557.13119@cpu.com>, gwlester@cpu.com (Gerald W. Lester) writes:
>> 
>> 	It might avoid some confusion, but the statement is **WRONG**!!
>> At least the L&T and 3P SIG chairs are elected by the general membership at
>> their respective Open SIG Steering Committe meetings members (not restricted
>> to leaders) present.  I believe that L&T does put a restriction that DEC
>> employees can not vote, but I'm not sure.
>
>I cannot speak for 3P, but L&T most definately does not elect SIG
>chairs.  Our Policies and Procedures, both the current ones, and the
>version now under review, do not even mention voting.  SIG chairs
>are, in actuality, "nominated" by the outgoing SIG chair, and 
>confirmed by the Executive Committee.  Changes are reached by 
>concensus, with votes of any sort being extremely rare.  To as great
>an extent as possible, L&T maintains a huge steering committee, and
>subject to budget constraints, keeps as many of them involved in 
>SIG affairs as possible.
>
>Note that I fully support this mechanism, I am not in any way
>criticizing it.  As long as it is easy to volunteer your time to 
>the SIG, and access to the steering committee is open, it produces
>a smoother operation, and tends to discourage DECUS politicians, as
>opposed to actual workers, from trying to control the SIG.
>
>The mechanism does, however, at least present the appearance of a 
>less representative democracy in SIG Council and the MC.
>

	Al, I stand corrected.  I went back and read the P&Ps and it
does not mention elections.  For some reason I thought that we took that
section of the 3P SIG P&P's from L&T.  It must have come from someplace else.
I hope whatever SIG they were they speak up.

>> 
>> 	You are very much a minority.  The news letter subscription was about
>> 2% of the membership and a good number of subscribers had/have either or both
>> DECUServe or DCS accounts.
>>
>
>Several people have expressed their concern to me over the demise
>of the newsletter. 2% of the membership is *roughly* 1000 subscribers,
>which is very low, but many of those subscribers really wanted it.
>They HAD to, to fight through all the barriers we put in their way to
>maintaining their subscriptions!  DECUS killed the newsletters, but
>not in one swell foop this past fall, but gradually over the last
>five years through poor marketing, bad renewal policies, and lack
>of support.
>

	My 2% was based on a set of notes I had that said we had roughly 2,000
paid subscribtions and a membership of 60,000 (which is really 3.33...%, but I
did the math in my head).  To get 1,000 subscribers you used a membership
figure of 50,000.  If we are down to 50,000 members the figure should be 6%.