🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec15.143628.4673@spcvxb.spc.edu>, killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff
Killeen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.151045@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>>It is a pity that the leadership is not interested in the opinions of the
>>membership. Perhaps the change we ought to be trying to make is in who gets to
>>>vote for the people that do make the decisions. You say if we want our
>opinion >>to count, we have to become leadership. DECUS isn't interested in the
>opinions >>of the consumers of it products (to use a different terminology you
>employed), >>only the producers. What's wrong with this picture?

First off, I should point out that this was a paraphrase of a previous posting
by someone else. I'm not trying to attack anyone in specific here. I do think
that most or all of the DECUS leadership is honestly trying to do the best job
they can for the society and its members. I simply feel that the members and
leaders are so cut off from each other that leaders are sometimes making
uninformed decisions. The membership has little or no influence on these
decisions, because the opportunities simply aren't there for them to participate
in the decisions, or to engage in a dialog that would better inform the decision
makers as to the membership's concerns.

>Terry most of upper level DECUS leadership has become very interested in input
>from the customer.  In fact we have some very solid organized research efforts
>going on right now.  

Glad to hear it.

>However if we are going to be honest most of the postings
>on this subject have been from DECUS Leaders/insiders trying to incite a riot
>to reverse a decision they did not agree with.  

Maybe. But what they were doing is informing the membership of a decision that
they felt the membership would disagree with. Whatever their motives, it is true
that a) the membership wouldn't have heard about this till much later if those
people hadn't spoken outside of official channels, and b) at least some of the
membership thinks it was an utterly stupid decision and would very much like it
reversed.

Note that the reorg flap happened the same way. Without postings here from
leadership people explaining what the change really meant, many people would
probably have gone along simply because the board recommended it. And given that
dissenting opinions were given much less space in the official ballot than the
proponents, it was the only way most of us would have heard about the whole
thing.

You can look at it as specific leaders trying to incite a riot to make an end
run around the elected structure of DECUS, or you can look at it as specific
leaders informing the membership to prevent an end run by the elected structure
of DECUS around the best interests of the membership. I suppose your choice
would depend on where you fit in the DECUS structure and what you thought of the
issue in question. In both this instance and the reorg, I take the latter view.
I'm sure in both instances the BOD takes the former view. However, whatever the
motives, increased dialog has to be a good thing. I personally consider that the
"rebels" have done those of us "out here" a service by giving us a peek as to
what's going on on the inside.

>Very little has been heard
>from the membership/customer.  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.  

Charles has a tendency to express his opinions rather strongly. As he points
out, that doesn't diminish their value, though it does certainly reduce the
number of people who will take the time to read and consider them. I salute J.
M. for making the effort to continue the dialog.

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

Then you are missing probably the easiest, most cost effective, and probably
most productive way of getting user input.

>If we
>want to take a shot at us do it on the basis of not being very productive at
>electronic _dialog_.  

Dialog is always the best. You can ask me questions, and I can answer, but if I
misunderstand the point of the question, you may misunderstand the answer, and
it gives me no opportunity to comment in depth on, or to offer new solutions to,
the underlying problem. Thus surveys will always be of limited usefulness, and a
poorly designed survey can be worse than useless (just look at some of the
political polls). Most people on the net have seen this happen. Someone asks how
to do x. It may be that the reason he asks is that he's already decided that to
solve his problem he has to do x, y, and z. Sometimes x is impossible and people
ask why he wants to do that. After he explains the problem, he gets a whole
different, better solution than what he came up with, which wouldn't have worked
anyway.

>Sure there are a few Marg, Clyde, and myself who
>routinely engage in electronic dialog but the majority of the BOD and MC still
>do not.  We are listening - I wish we did a better job of discussing.  I will
>know that day has arrived when we are bringing issues to these forums rather
>than reacting to them. 

I'm very happy that there are those of you that do engage in dialog, and I wish
more did. I think it is a goal that should be pursued. But even though you are
out there, this medium isn't used to discuss issues until one of the "rebels"
stirs it up out here. Many people on SIG steering commitees read this group. I'm
sure some SIG chairs do also. Yet nobody thought to use this forum to ask the
membership what it thought on this issue before the decision was made. That's a
shame, and a missed opportunity. 

Perhaps one of the reasons people like Charles get as upset as they do when
these things happen is that it would have been so easy for someone to simply
post a message here explaining the proposed action and the reasons for it, and
then reading the responses. You might have made the same decisionm, but at least
we'd feel our opinions were considered.

>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.  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. 

Also, the BOD is selected mainly from the leadership. No matter how good their
intentions (and I do believe they are good), once elected, they really have
little further contact with the membership. 

Also, I tend to think that one of the reasons there are only 10000 active
members as opposed to 60000 or so members is that the other 50000 don't really
feel any connection to the society. They don't feel they have a stake in it. If
you could get those people to have greater contact with the society, perhaps
they would be more active. I know if I weren't involved with VMSnet, my only
connection to DECUS would be this newsgroup, and symposia, when I can make it.
This newsgroup only focuses on a very few of the myriad issues facing the
society, and hardly gives a balanced view of what's going on, and symposia are
so overwhelming, it's all you can do to keep up with technical sessions, much
lest become involved in the working of the society itself, especially when you
can only get there infrequently. 

I know I have more questions than answers, but perhaps some people will think
about these issues and come up with some solutions.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA