🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug25.090559.686@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes:
> Yes, if decus needs to save some money and trees {don't we all?}, then
> they could probably charge a nominal fee for some of the subscriptions
> (but does that mean we now pay for the decus newsletters AND decuscope/etc
> separately?   hummmm.)

I am affaird this discussion does not reflect the thinking of most of senior 
DECUS leadership who favor this idea.  (BTW I am truly neutral on this issue)

There is a concern that there really are two classes of members...

1) Those who view themselves as MEMBERS of the Digital Equipment _Computer_ 
User Society.

2) Those who view themselves as CONSUMERS of products and services DECUS 
happens to be the provider of.

Group 1 and 2 have different Chapter communication needs.  For example the 
Group 1 folks should be given a voice in the management of the chapter.  The 
Group 2 folks needs to researched like any other customer base.

The core of the thinking of many folks on the membership fee issue is to use it 
as a tool to identify which folks are members and which folks are consumers.  
One would have to view themselves as a member to pay the fee.

Problems arise...

	A) How many group 2 folks by mistake might you drive away?

	B) How many group 2 folks will become group 1 not because of interest
	but because of discounts?

	C) How many group 1 folks will be identified as group 2 folks simply
	because their company won't pay membership fees?

Remember the design objective is to split the membership list based on how each 
member sees themselves - a membership fee is just a suggested tool.  Trust 
there are many many good reasons why spliting the list is goodness - if for no 
other reason to get rid of dartboard voting.

In article <1992Aug25.140249.3686@spcvxb.spc.edu> killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu 
	(Jeff Killeen) writes:
>Subject: Re: Membership fee for DECUS?
>From: killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen)
>Date: 25 Aug 92 18:02:49 GMT

>There is a concern that there really are two classes of members...
	...
>Remember the design objective is to split the membership list based on how each 
>member sees themselves - a membership fee is just a suggested tool.  Trust 
>there are many many good reasons why spliting the list is goodness - if for no 
>other reason to get rid of dartboard voting.

	My information is about 4 years old, and many of my views are 
uninformed by current discussion, but I do have some different perpectives 
to share.  [I think Jeff knows me well enough to read the following with a 
smile!]

	The nominal membership of DECUS/US is about 50K.  The real 
membership is about 25-30K.  The audits we implemented (six years ago or so) 
were never fully implemented to trim the mailing list as we had intended.  
If a major goal is to save mailing costs and trees, DECUS could just 
eliminate the mailing-list names of inactive members -- and tighten the 
definition of "inactive".  (I'd now fall into that category, I think.)

	Customers pay for services, and the fees include overhead for DECUS 
operations.  So they pay for "membership" through purchases.  No purchases, 
no membership (i.e., they get trimmed from the list after a couple of 
years of inactivity).  Or, no newsletter/library contributions, they get 
trimmed (i.e., they are neither contributing nor using DECUS resources, so 
they are probably uninterested; reinstate upon request).

	I think it is a mistake to believe that dividing the mailing list 
into customers vs. members will fix the crapshoot election process (for 
those who don't understand the term: DECUS elections are a crapshoot, 
because those voting are generally not sufficiently well informed about the 
issues or the candidates' positions to make intelligent choices, thus the 
election results reflect popularity, publicity, innuendo, etc., rather than 
considered choices by the electorate -- at least, that's what the term 
means; decide for yourself if that view is correct).

	I suggest that the next Board election include the candidate's 
position on this membership-fee issue, in bold type, on their abstracts.  
Lest you mistake my view, I don't think there is a free lunch anywhere, and 
certainly not in DECUS.  But I do think that anyone using DECUS products 
pays for DECUS overhead (which used to include raw materials, mailings, 
leadership travel, etc., but not DECUS staff or facilities).  Adding an 
explict fee seems unnecessary and unreasonable.  I think the electorate will 
tell the Board so if they're given a chance.

	If the problem is wasted trees and money for mailings that don't 
interest people, solve that problem.  If the problem is an uninformed 
electorate, solve that problem.  I don't think DECUS needs membership fees 
to solve either problem.  It does need a consistent and coherent strategy 
for funding, for representation, and for effective management.  Membership 
fees might be part of the solution for the first and last, but not for the 
representation issue.

	Thanks for listening (if you're still there).

					David Todd
					DECUS old-timer

[Hi, Jeff.  Yes, I do still read comp.org.decus.  Hello to everyone!]

In article <1992Aug25.140249.3686@spcvxb.spc.edu> killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff
Killeen) writes:
> I am affaird this discussion does not reflect the thinking of most of senior 
> DECUS leadership who favor this idea.  (BTW I am truly neutral on this issue)
> 
> There is a concern that there really are two classes of members...
> 1) Those who view themselves as MEMBERS of the Digital Equipment _Computer_ 
> User Society.
> 
> 2) Those who view themselves as CONSUMERS of products and services DECUS 
> happens to be the provider of.

	But this scheme implies that each group is distinct.  There are
those who would be in both groups.  I am one of them.

> Group 1 and 2 have different Chapter communication needs.  For example the 
> Group 1 folks should be given a voice in the management of the chapter.  The 
> Group 2 folks needs to researched like any other customer base.
> 
> The core of the thinking of many folks on the membership fee issue is to use
> it as a tool to identify which folks are members and which folks are consumers
> One would have to view themselves as a member to pay the fee.

	Why not use LUG membership as the tool?  Anyone interested enough
to just a LUG must consider themselves members of DECUS.

> Problems arise...
> 
> 	A) How many group 2 folks by mistake might you drive away?
> 
> 	B) How many group 2 folks will become group 1 not because of interest
> 	but because of discounts?
> 
> 	C) How many group 1 folks will be identified as group 2 folks simply
> 	because their company won't pay membership fees?

	Point C is my concern.  DECUS would be embracing the Golden Rule:
those with the gold make the rules.  I'm having enough trouble convincing
certain levels of management that DECUS is worth my time.  I'll be hard
pressed to get them to spring for a membership fee.  Since my standard of
living is dropping with higher taxes, inflation, etc., I would be hard
pressed to come up with the money myself unless the fee was nominal.

	Therefore, this seems to be a step backward.  I can't help but think
that this pay-for-vote is a result of the failed reorganization referendum.
A few individuals opposed to the reorg took the matter to the membership
(in this newsgroup, in fact) and convinced them that it was a bad idea.
The reorg did not pass.  This fee might help to see that that doesn't happen
again.  Elections and referenda can be such a bother for those who know
what's best.

> Remember the design objective is to split the membership list based on how
> each 
> member sees themselves - a membership fee is just a suggested tool.  Trust 
> there are many many good reasons why spliting the list is goodness - if for
> no other reason to get rid of dartboard voting.

	I can't imagine that many members engage in dartboard voting.
If they are disinterested in voting, they will throw the ballot away.
But it should still be their choice to do so.
-- 
Joe Barone
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
Knowing everything is impractical.  Access times would be enormous.

In article <1992Aug25.090559.686@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.120610.974@beckman.com>, dsroberts@beckman.com writes:
>[...] 
>> "full" gets things like DECUScope, can vote, etc. and pays the membership fee,
>                                      ^^^^^^^^
Please don't overreact to this, it's all discussion and working towards a
proposal.  Nothings decided.  But we need to get a feel from the membership on
this.  As a member, I actually have no problem with this portion of the
discussion.  In the ACM, isn't it true that only full members can vote?
> 
> Yes, if decus needs to save some money and trees {don't we all?}, then
> they could probably charge a nominal fee for some of the subscriptions
> (but does that mean we now pay for the decus newsletters AND decuscope/etc
> separately?   hummmm.)

I wanted to address this.  Please note:  THE DECUS NEWSLETTERS NO LONGER EXIST. 
The October issue will be THE LAST!  Everyone with a newsletter subscription
(and there are not very many) will get a DECUServe subscription in its place
(or can demand cash back).  Start a new topic if you want to discuss this :-)

This membership fee could turn out to be the difference between getting the 12
page registration pamphlet for Symposia or the 100 page abstracts packet, for
all I know.

-- 
   Don Roberts                   Internet:  don@beckman.com
   Beckman Instruments, Inc.     Phone:     714/961-3029
   2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX:       714/961-3351
   Fullerton, CA  92634          Disclaimer:  Blame me, not Beckman.
   People are as happy as they decide to be - A. Lincoln

In article <hdtodd.2.714835604@wccnet.wcc.wesleyan.edu>, hdtodd@wccnet.wcc.wesleyan.edu (H. D. Todd) writes:
> 	I think it is a mistake to believe that dividing the mailing list 
> into customers vs. members will fix the crapshoot election process (for 
> those who don't understand the term: DECUS elections are a crapshoot, 
> because those voting are generally not sufficiently well informed about the 
> issues or the candidates' positions to make intelligent choices, thus the 
> election results reflect popularity, publicity, innuendo, etc., rather than 
> considered choices by the electorate -- at least, that's what the term 
> means; decide for yourself if that view is correct).

[Hi Dave!]

	Most believe the election process is a "crapshoot".  I believe a major 
part of the motivation for splitting the list is it may be cost achievable to 
then do a voter education program.

In article <1992Aug26.103456.3697@spcvxb.spc.edu> killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) writes:

>        Most believe the election process is a "crapshoot".  I believe a major 
>part of the motivation for splitting the list is it may be cost achievable to 
>then do a voter education program.

Jeff,

	I'm one who also believes that the elections are a crapshoot.  But 
(damn, always the educator!), I think it's better to a) try to develop an 
informed electorate and b) trust that those actually elected rise to the 
tasks at hand.  [And I've been surprised how often and fast the turkeys who 
get elected grow into responsible individuals!]  Though these are trying 
times, I still believe in the republican form of government.

	If cost of educating the electorate is the major issue, trim the 
mailing list.  I never understood why it was not done in the past (and 
yes, I think I was supposed to be responsible for it!), but it may have had 
to do with wanting to keep the nominal membership count high, either for 
Digital or for public posturing.  If DECUS is considering other mechanisms 
to trim the membership mailing list, then why not just start with the one at 
hand: use the audit results as originally intended and drop those who don't 
respond to the audit card or haven't purchased a product in two years.  If 
past statistics hold, the membership list would drop to 25K to 30K, from 
50K.  Not a bad return on the investment (which would be nearly zero).  

	I would think that DECUS would be mighty embarassed if it imposed a 
membership fee and membership dropped to 2000.  That would not be an 
accurate reflection of the interest in DECUS or Digital, but it might be an 
accurate reflection of corporate policies and disposable individual incomes 
right now. 

	I don't like to see policy based on tactics rather than strategies.  
The membership fee idea seems motivated by tactics.  I hope the membership 
get a chance to say what they think directly.

I was trying to respond to this a few days ago but my news reader
balked.  Is there a message in that ;-)?

In a previous article, dsroberts@beckman.com wrote:
>On a conference on DCS and DECUServe, a DECUS leader has begun a topic
>discussing charging a fee for membership in DECUS.  It sounds like a proposal
>is gelling to have two types of member, a "full" and an "associate", where the
>"full" gets things like DECUScope, can vote, etc. and pays the membership fee,
>while an "associate" only gets notification of symposium and other such revenue
>generating DECUS products.  This appears to be a cost-cutting proposal (and
>tree saving), as it seems to be expensive to mail EVERYTHING to all 50,000 US
>members but only have a small percentage actually care.
> 
>Anyone care to comment on this?

I'm afraid that I'd loose my 15+ years of association with Decus.  I have not
been all that active - but I have attended two symposia, participate in the
symposium tape distribution in my LUG, was an active participant in the
PAGESWAPPER for a while and _enjoy_ the benefits of membership.

I don't think, however, that I could get my employer to pay fees for this
membership.  I can't, as yet, even get on DECUSERVE.  Please be careful before
a number like me are forced off the rolls.

Gerson Cohen, NIH
ghc@vger.niddk.nih.gov

In article <26AUG92.17322460@vger.niddk.nih.gov>, 
ghc@vger.niddk.nih.gov writes:
> 
> I'm afraid that I'd loose my 15+ years of association with Decus.  I have not
> been all that active - but I have attended two symposia, participate in the
> symposium tape distribution in my LUG, was an active participant in the
> PAGESWAPPER for a while and _enjoy_ the benefits of membership.
> 
> I don't think, however, that I could get my employer to pay fees for this
> membership.  I can't, as yet, even get on DECUSERVE.  Please be careful before
> a number like me are forced off the rolls.

Normally, I would be responding to this on DCS and/or DECUServe. Unfortunatly, 
I still have no communiucations (Don, I should be back up by this weekend! :-) 
) to there, so I'll respond here.

The above is true of many "LUGers". These are people who are active at the 
Local User Group level of DECUS, but not the national level. I could almost 
guarentee that the LUG librarian for this area wouldn't pay out-of-pocket and I 
know that his company won't pay.

In fact, I know, no matter how deeply I have been involved with DECUS, that I 
would most likely drop off the rolls. It would really be a matter of principle 
for me, but I haven't been paid for the hours that I have given to/for DECUS. I 
have done it because I enjoy it. To have to pay for the priviledge of being 
involved in DECUS leadership, well, sorry it won't wash. 

jmi
ivler@mdcbbs.com
DECUS New Products Mediator

[Do you have a "new product" idea for DECUS that you would like to champion? 
Yes? If so, please send the idea to ivler@mdcbbs.com - Let's see if we can make 
it work for you, and for DECUS. Make your DECUS ideas and concepts reality.]

In article <hdtodd.2.714835604@wccnet.wcc.wesleyan.edu>, hdtodd@wccnet.wcc.wesleyan.edu (H. D. Todd) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.140249.3686@spcvxb.spc.edu> killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu 
> 	(Jeff Killeen) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Membership fee for DECUS?
...

I don't have the details at hand, so don't take it to literaly.

> 
> 	The nominal membership of DECUS/US is about 50K.  The real 
> membership is about 25-30K.  The audits we implemented (six years ago or so) 
> were never fully implemented to trim the mailing list as we had intended.  
> If a major goal is to save mailing costs and trees, DECUS could just 
> eliminate the mailing-list names of inactive members -- and tighten the 
> definition of "inactive".  (I'd now fall into that category, I think.)
> 
The .AU audit is done every few years. Members are posted an audit form to
complete and post back in a post paid envelope. This allows for change in SIGs
etc as well. No return, off the lists. Takes 2 min to do.

> 	Customers pay for services, and the fees include overhead for DECUS 
> operations.  So they pay for "membership" through purchases.  No purchases, 
> no membership (i.e., they get trimmed from the list after a couple of 
> years of inactivity).  Or, no newsletter/library contributions, they get 
> trimmed (i.e., they are neither contributing nor using DECUS resources, so 
> they are probably uninterested; reinstate upon request).
> 
different members will have differnt wants/needs, and this will result in
different 'visibility'.

...

> 	If the problem is wasted trees and money for mailings that don't 
> interest people, solve that problem.  If the problem is an uninformed 
> electorate, solve that problem.  I don't think DECUS needs membership fees 
> to solve either problem.  It does need a consistent and coherent strategy 
> for funding, for representation, and for effective management.  Membership 
> fees might be part of the solution for the first and last, but not for the 
> representation issue.
> 

We have added 'Corporate Membership' to .AU Decus. This gives the CM the Vax SIG
tapes and a few other things on one bill, hence easier to get through the bean
counters. No vote. they can send 5 nominees to symposia etc. About $1000 AU
per year.

~Paul

In article <1992Aug26.140651.5007@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
(Barone) writes:
>> The core of the thinking of many folks on the membership fee issue is to use
>> it as a tool to identify which folks are members and which folks are
>consumers
>> One would have to view themselves as a member to pay the fee.
>
>	Why not use LUG membership as the tool?  Anyone interested enough
>to just a LUG must consider themselves members of DECUS.

Uh-uh. My nearest "local" user's group is 125 miles from here. That's about a 4
hour or more round trip. Of course, they meet in the evenings. I haven't been to
one in probably close to a year, good intentions notwithstanding. It's just
difficult to do. If they decide to clean up their mailing list, I'll certainly
be off it. 

I do occasionally make it to symposia, and I like to think that managing VMSnet
is a contribution. That makes me a member and consumer, If I'm understanding the
distinction properly. I'm sure I'm not the only person distant from a LUG (or
distant from a LUG that addresses areas of interest for that person, not all
LUGS cover all topics, I hear). LUG activity isn't a requirement to be involved
(i.e. a "member) of DECUS.

I don't personally have a problem with paying, I think my company would spring
for it. As far as paying to vote, as long as the elections basically are a
crapshoot, who would? I don't see voting as a major enticement to get people to
pay. I'm also not real sure people would pay for DECUScope. With the newsletters
gone, what else can you charge money for? If you are going to ask for money, you
are going to have to offer a tangible benefit that will make sense to the bean
counters, or _many_ people will have trouble paying for it, no matter how low
the cost, or how great the intangible benefits.

If this is just to make up a revenue shortfall, it'd probably be better to raise
prices on existing services. That's at least honest. If it is to generate new
revenue, what would that revenue be used for, and why can't those activities
generate revenue another way? If this is just to trim the mailing list, I think
it's a poor way to do it. An audit of some sort would be better. If the last
audit wasn't satisfactory (I'm guessing, since it wasn't used), that doesn't
invalidate the whole approach.
--
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

In article <1992Sep2.142027@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug26.140651.5007@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
>(Barone) writes:
>
>I don't personally have a problem with paying, I think my company would spring
>for it. As far as paying to vote, as long as the elections basically are a
>crapshoot, who would? I don't see voting as a major enticement to get people to
>pay. I'm also not real sure people would pay for DECUScope. With the newsletters
>gone, what else can you charge money for? If you are going to ask for money, you
>are going to have to offer a tangible benefit that will make sense to the bean
>counters, or _many_ people will have trouble paying for it, no matter how low
>the cost, or how great the intangible benefits.
>
>If this is just to make up a revenue shortfall, it'd probably be better to raise
>prices on existing services. That's at least honest. If it is to generate new
>revenue, what would that revenue be used for, and why can't those activities
>generate revenue another way? If this is just to trim the mailing list, I think
>it's a poor way to do it. An audit of some sort would be better. If the last
>audit wasn't satisfactory (I'm guessing, since it wasn't used), that doesn't
>invalidate the whole approach.

Terry,

	From the discussions I've been a part of it boils down to the following
points:

	1) Claims are made that Symposium fees are too high

	2) Symposium (and its related items) are the major source for DECUS
	   operating funds (at least when Symp. does not lose money, then it 
	   is the bank accounts)


	The *theory* is that if we had a membership fee than the Symposium fee
would only have to cover the cost of preparing for it, putting it on, and a
truely modest profit for future insurance (i.e. when thing go wrong and
a Symposium losses money).  The other products (library, session notes, audio 
tapes, DECUServe would/could also run with having to make less profit).  And
the membership fee could be used for:

	1) LUGS
	2) DECUScope
	3) General Overhead (Board, MC, NLC)

	This would allow DECUS to either lower the current fees are at least
not raise them as much as we would normally have to do.

	They maybe some other general overhead things or other points that I
can't recall.  BTW, I made this proposal back before the fee increases of 1990
(if my memory serves me right) in a DCS notes conference (either BOD or MC, I
can't remeber which).  I have not seen many recent DCS notes on the topic.

==========================================================================
* Gerald W. Lester                        !   Voice:  (504)-889-2784     *
* Computerized Processes Unlimited        !   FAX:    (504)-889-2799     *
* 4200 S. I-10 Service Road, Suite #205   !   E-Mail: gwl@cpu.com        *
* Metairie, LA  70001                     !                              *
==========================================================================

P.S. - Trival time!!

1)	Before about '85 DECUS had a voting and non-voting members, anyone
	remember what they were called and when we changed?

2)	What was the last year in which three (3) national symposium were held?