🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec15.143628.4673@spcvxb.spc.edu>, killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) writes:
> Prior to yours - the one membership type
> posting was so vitriolic, so full of obscenities, and so much a general knee
> jerk attack that did not relate to the issue at hand IMHO I am surprised
> anyone responded to it.

Jeff, I assume you're refering to my previous post on this topic.  I'd like
you to go back and show me the obscenities that you found.  Running through
it, I noted the word "bullshit" twice.

This, perhaps,  is what you're refering to?

I would have picked a different term if I were dealing with a room of
first graders;  however, I hardly consider a word which has appeared
on the front page of the New York Times and in Time, among many other
places, to be obscene.  And that roughly two (I didn't search carefully)
such references constitute "full of" a fairly long commentary.

And I beg to differ that the issues discussed did not relate to the 
initial topic - that there is an apparently not uncommon view that
the Board, MC, and other "high" leadership groups appear to operate
in an imperial, closed, back room, cliquish fashion, and the standards
issue is yet another example.

Was the posting vitriolic?  Perhaps.  It was most definately an emotional
reaction to the tone I read into Clyde's message, which I found elitist,
condiscending, and a prime example of "We've studied the problem, we
have all the info we need to do the best thing for you, trust us."

I don't know Clyde personally;  I'm sure that he feels he has the best
interests of the society at heart.  However, in memory yet green, a
board of directors (some of whom are still directors) tried to pull
a fast one.  It's going to be awhile before I'm willing to accept on
faith a statement of the form "Trust me, I'm on the board and I know whats
best for you" from anyone I don't know personally.

> Terry I really do feel we are begining to truly listen but it is
> mainly through customer research projects and not electronic media.  

However, this does little to address the *perception*.  Jeff, I mean
this is the gentlest way possible, but the only evidence I see of it
is you here saying it's so...  Maybe it takes time for these things
to trickle down;  however, there is at least some empirical data that
things are on a downward spiral in some regards;  I would pose the
question, is it time for bold, direct, and perhaps drastic action?

> BTW - Yes almost all of DECUS's management structure is elected by leadership.
> However the final authority really is in the BOD which is elected by the
> membership i.e. the folks elected by the membership get to overrule the folks
> elected by the leadership. 

This is one of the major issues that I see with the way BOD elections are
handled.  The rules, as written, require that BOD canidates come from the
upper ranks of leadership... requirements to have held a major office -
sig chair, MC, etc.  If this requirement were removed, replaced with
perhaps a 2 year membership requirement, it would go along way in my
mind to providing a path for opening things up a bit more and providing
a real oppertunity to bring in some fresh blood not indoctrinated in the
leadership cluture.  If I'm not mistaken, even a write in canidate must
meet LDEC's objective requirements.

> Does it happen - no not really mainly because the
> 1000 or so leaders really aren't that far out of the main stream with the
> 10,000 or so active members.  If something flys with the leadership it is most
> likely is reflective of what will fly with the active membership. 

Maybe so, but the above posting generated about 15 messages via email, of
which 12 were strongly in agreement.  Maybe I'm just one of a small 
percentage of malcontents with enough time on my hands to gripe publically
rather than just pack up my marbles and stay home - as a lot of people
have been doing from symposia lately.

--
Charles T. Smith, Jr.
cts@dragon.com