🚀 go-pugleaf

Joel since you are artfully ignoring certain points let me make them again 
before the debate gets redirected...

	1) Your premise that if you consume the products and services Joe
average member consumes you are in touch as been repeatedly proven flawed.  We
have had BOD and MC members who routinely attended all the activities you
listed and were totally out of touch.  My retort is what we need in decision
making leadership is a customer driven culture that understands they do not
have any gifted wisdom from which they can make judgement calls.  That they
must carefully research what our members value. 

	2) Your premise that if your are not a clone of the consumer you must
be out of touch has also been proven flawed.  While you took cheap shots by
only choosing to highlight the most trivial of the efforts (joining attendees
in the lunch room) and with the Bush comment there have been many notable
examples of enterprises who have people who built very successful products
because they understood the customer and not because they are the customer. 
FED-EX, Maytag, the Ford Taurus, and new the Chrysler LH cars are just a few
examples.   ONE OF THE GREAT DANGERS IN DECUS LEADERSHIP IS WE ARE BOTH
CONSUMERS AND PROVIDERS/FACILITATORS - it is very easily to confuse meeting
the needs and desires of the membership with meeting our own personal needs. 

In article <17DEC199211335228@carat.arizona.edu>, jms@carat.arizona.edu (A virtually vegetal non-entity) writes:

> My syllogism:
> 	DECUS members are interested in product set X.
> 	DECUS high-level leadership is not interested in product set X.
> 	Ergo, DECUS high-level leadership does not share the interests of DECUS
> 	members.  

Ah Joel stating it in this form I can take very strong exception to your point
of view.  You have switched your point of view from DECUS leaders do not
consume to DECUS senior leaders are not interested in.  Just taking it from
your primitive point of view i.e. to consume is to show in interest - 1/3 to
1/2 of the BOD members have direct report employees who consume DECUS products
they have to authorize. The MC also has 2-3 members with direct reports who
consume services.  You also have both MC and BOD members who provide DECUS
services. 

Now if we move up the next level isn't it more important to know that senior
leadership is trying to address the same types of computing environment issues
that the membership is?  With one exception all the members of the BOD and MC
today are technical managers with roots in the Digital style of computing
environment.  These folks have have a deep interest in the same technology
issues facing the membership today.  In my case I am facing the same what
platform do I do my development on issue the rest of the membership is facing.

But if move beyond your simplistic approach of you must sit in sessions - no
one in the U.S. Chapter has more of an interest in seeing the needs of the
membership are met than the BOD and MC.  Simply because we know that if we
don't the Chapter fails. 

I have found in the past attributes of your point of view to be very
dangerous. It is leadership from a very subjective viewpoint.  Folks believe
they have the answer because they have walked in the shoes of Joe average
member - In fact this almost always has lead to leadership meeting their
personal needs and not meeting the needs of the membership.  I am about to
touch a raw nerve with you but the classic example of this was the Chapter's
newsletter.  The BOD and MC were never involved in the content of that
document.  The only fingerprints the BOD and MC ever placed on it was the form
of delivery.  The content decisions where driven by the SIGs and the CommComm
committee.  The folks making those decision were the very folks who attended
sessions, campgrounds, and LUG meetings.  The simple fact is that it was a
leadership driven document that valued SIG Identity and DECUS chatter over
serving the needs of the membership.  Before the DECUServe Journal was added
to it 1/3 to 1/2 of it was SIG Chatter.  The BOD and MC never in any manner,
shape, or form tried to control the editorial content.  The editorial content
was controlled by folks interested in product set X and yet it missed the mark
in meeting membership needs.  I am sure you are going to try to divert
attention from this point by saying the BOD and the MC set the form of the
newsletter but if you are going to be honest it was the content and not the
form that caused the newsletter to fail. 

> Your response:
> 	DECUS leadership has both high-level and low-level, and that the 
> 	low-level folks do, in fact, consume product set X.
> 	DECUS high-level leadership does, in fact, keep in touch by eating 
> 	lunch with attendees, etc. 
> 	Ergo, DECUS leadership at all levels shares the interests of DECUS 
> 	members.

Nice try but my original point was if something would fly with the 1000 or so
members of leadership that it will fly with the active membership.  When you
responded leadership is out of touch and offered as your "proof" the
activities of the MC and BOD I responded this group can't be used as proof set
as to what is representative of the whole leadership body.  In addition I
pointed out your basic assumption about senior leadership of "A" implies "B"
and therefore "C" is true was a crock.  There are many ways to get to "C"
(i.e. being in touch with membership) and "B" is only one of many paths.
Additionally I pointed out your path "B" (i.e. attending sessions) in no way
guarantees "C". 

> DECUS low-level leadership (hmmm, that's me!) has little or no
> decision-making impact on the society.  MC+Board holds the checkbook, and
> effectively makes all decisions which regard to programs moving forward,
> or moving backwards.  

And who elects the MC?  More than any one else the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
SIG Council would be amused by your suggestion of all power and independence
from the SIG Chairs. 

> What you call "leadership" is not composed of leaders, but of the workers
> who produce the true products of the society.  In fact, there is a
> specific, mandated dichotomy between those-who-lead and those-who-produce,
> where the Society has made a very strong effort to keep those-who-produce
> producing, and shielded from the difficulties of running the society, while
> those-who-lead are busy leading, and have little or no time to produce.  As
> always, the higher you go, the less you have to do with real products.  
>  
> Let's introduce a real distinction here.  We have DECUS
> leaders-who-make-decisions, which number in the small tens, perhaps as much
> as 100.  And we have leaders-who-make-products, which comprise the rest of
> the pro-forma leadership. 

Yes there are 200 or so leaders who do make the decisions as to what providers
get supported.  They are SIG Chairs, Regional LUG Coordinators, Symposia
Committee, Library, DECUServe, CommComm, Seminars Committee, MC, and BOD.
Those 200 or so leaders are in close contact with another 100-200 leaders.
Keep in mind the BOD and MC almost never get involved in content decisions -
only in form decisions.  It is next level in DECUS that makes the content
decisions. 

> These people make the decisions on how DECUS will be run, and they do it
> without any consultation with the rest of leadership, and they do it
> without sharing the interests of the Society.   Your examples are, to be kind,
> ludicrous.  This reminds me of George Bush and his tour of supermarkets,
> where he was amazed by the bar-code scanner.  It sounds like the beknighted
> deigning to come down to where the little people are and listen to their
> problems.  

Joel your above paragraph is why I find your point of view dangerous.  DECUS
should not be a solely leadership driven Society.  It must also be a customer
driven Society.  There is a clear theme in your point of view the folks who
walk with the masses must know the answer and these are the folks we should
empower.  Allow me to suggest history has shown those are code words for
solely empowering leadership.  Also allow me to suggest the very fact that you
see customer research as something to ridicule smacks of a elitist I know the
answer because of my background attitude.  The one thing that I am very proud
of these days is DECUS senior leadership has finally stop having this elitist
attitude that they are somehow smarter because of where they are and now are
taking the position we think we know the questions - lets go out a find the
answers. 

> The fact that you don't even see my point makes it all the more telling.  

I very much accept the point that DECUS leadership at any level is always
running a real risk of becoming detached from the interests of the membership.
Becoming a Provider/Leader in and of itself sets you apart.  What I don't
accept is that your suggested means for maintaining the pulse of the customer
is... 

	1) The only way it can be achieved.

	2) Is an effective way to achieve it.

..but IMHO knowing that problem exists and acting to solve it is at least 50
percent of the answer.  The point I think you are missing that I find telling
is you don't see that your approach is just as likely to end up in the same
place. 

> Here's a proposal on DECUS Leadership: The moment someone is willing to
> give up active participation in a national Symposium is the moment that
> this person no longer shares the same interests as the active membership. 

And that is a crock for 3 reasons...

	1) It assumes you can't have an true interest and understanding of
something that you are not actively participating in.  

	2) It assumes national Symposia is the only way to obtain information
to meet the needs of an interest area.  We have these things called LUGs,
Regional Conferences, and DECUServe.  I will put the technical knowledge
available on DECUServe against any part of Symposia. 

	3) After you have been in leadership for a period of time you gain
access to information sources not generally available.  Just because you have
found another way to solve a problem does not in any way suggest that the
interests are still not the same. 

As I said earlier it is probably more important to know what their technology
interests are rather than the means they choose for information exchange. 

> What you're suggesting is that the highest levels of leadership are akin to
> professional politicians.  Being a president, senator, or governor is a >
full-time job.  We trust these people to understand our needs and desires. 

You should never have blind faith trust that anyone will understand the needs
of membership no matter what their background is.  You can't assume that
because someone has a given background they will understand your needs and
desires - and you can't assume because someone has a given background they
won't understand your needs and desires.  These assumptions are at the core of 
the false premise you are putting forth.

> Resorting to standard USENET tactics, I quote from the original thread:
> >> Jeff, here's a challenge: "survey" the MC (after all, research is the new
> >> methodology) and get a list of sessions they attended.  Or gave.  Then,
> >> let's see who's out of touch with whom.
> > 
> >Answered above - and keep in mind again my original point related to the 1000 
> >and not the 20 being discussed here.
>  
> I respond: NOT!  Look, several of the members of the BOD are good friends,
> but let me point this out: 5 of them are consultants.  2 are managers.  1,
> I don't know.  Is this representative of the DECUS membership? 

Again 5 consultants, 2 managers, and 1 you don't know may be very attune to
the needs and desires of the membership if they are both faced with the
computing issues. 

> I return to my original statement: you may make a value judgement on your
> own as to whether having leadership [sic] separate from membership is good
> or bad.  But you cannot argue that the leadership, the decision-making part
> of DECUS, is in touch with and shares the interests of the membership of
> the Society.

Yes I can very strongly argue that decision-making part of DECUS shares the
same computing interests of membership.  Joel the only premise that you have
put forward that will withstand a logic test is .2 percent of leadership may
not share the same exchange methods as the membership of Society.  But you not
have made a case that the interests are not shared.  It has been a bunch of
"A" proves "B" and therefore "C" is true arguments. 

This will never be as black and white a Joel makes it.  Because you belong to 
group X, Y, or Z proves nothing.  It is dangerous to assume because someone 
belongs to given group they are in touch with the needs and desires of the 
membership.  The reality is somewhere in the gray area.  And more important it 
is critical to recognize no matter what group you belong to that staying in 
touch is hard work that requires constant effort.

######

I waited 12 hours before I posted the above.  In rereading Joel's note and my
reply it jumped out at me that this is an example of class warfare where
symbolism is being valued over substance.  The symbolism of belonging to the
right class/group and doing the right activities does not equal substantial
proof that there is any real effective result is being obtained.  IMHO these
symbolism arguments are red herrings - the real evaluation should be is
someone out of touch and how are they out of touch - not some false symbolism
by virtue of membership in a given group guarantees an end result.  Also are
they out of touch with a niche or they out of touch with the mainstream.  It
is valuing the symbolism of a litmus test over a true evaluation of where
folks substantially are. 

-- 
Jeff Killeen - DECUS U.S. Chapter NLC Chair | Email:killeen@eisner.decus.org

DECUS is for folks who are responsible for delivering computing technology.
The NLC is the national council for DECUS's Local User Groups - come join us!