🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave, Mike, and MADA members everywhere:
 
We appreciate your comments about the dilution of our charter. Some of our
Board members, members of the committee which made the original recomendations
to the Board, and the membership at large will undoubtedly have comments, but
it seems appropriate to send out out an "official" response.
 
There are a variety of reasons why MADA changed its charter. ONE of them was
the threat to our nonprofit status. As long as we focus on just the Macintosh,
the IRS will never recognize us as a nonprofit. That may not seem like such a
big deal, but we currently operate on the edge of fiscal stability. Anything we
can do to decrease our costs is worthwhile, and once we have more money to work
with, we can look at providing more member services or improving existing
services.
 
With this background, it would be very difficult to have the name "Macintosh"
in the name of MADA. Such a blatant reference to the Apple platform would bring
up the same IRS dust bunnies that ruffled at the mention of just MacApp. Does
this mean that MADA will abandon the Macintosh? Certainly not. Does it mean
that MADA will throw over its members to go where no developer association has
gone before? No.
 
The reality is that MADA's roots and history are thoroughly steeped in
the MacApp community. Even though there's talk of broadening our charter and
championing OO technology on other platforms, you would be very hard pressed to
show us a lot of examples that do just that. How much evidence have you seen
that anyone in this organization really wants to strongly advocate any other
platform? There are isolated instances, certainly, but there's no Windows
floodgate bulging at the seams, waiting to burst (unless James is not telling
us something), and we don't intend to drag the membership there kicking and
screaming. If we can appeal to another group of potential members and help them
learn from our current membership, we may do that, but that would be something
for building on the membership we already have, not replacing it.
 
Object Technology is used everywhere, but some of the best examples are in
place on the Macintosh. So, if we do expand to other "platforms" it will be to
help spread the word about Object Technology and to help developers explore the
possibilities of objects. If that means we have to expose Mac and non-Mac
cultures to each other, so be it. We can undoubtedly learn from each other.
 
Your description (Dave) of what MADA currently does is reasonably accurate. We
sell OO tools to help pay our costs (like FrameWorks printing) AND to provide
the members with benefits they can't get anywhere else. If the membership
doesn't get any value from the discounted products then we can find other ways
to fund the organization. We want you to get as much value as possible as a
Macintosh OO programmer. It just so happens we want non-Mac OO programmers to
get value from MADA as well. Those goals really aren't mutually exclusive are
they?
 
Regarding a planned coup, the MADA bylaws don't have a provision for a binding
referrendum by the membership. Currently, the only way for official policy to
be set, either by amending the Bylaws or simple resolution, is by a vote of the
Board of Directors. However, although a purely legal avenue is not available,
this does not mean that you have no communication channel.
 
The Board can bring any proposal to the membership for voting at any time. The
way to get the Board to do that is simple -- find a Board member, a champion
for your cause, who can convince a majority of the Board members that a vote on
the suggested topic is warranted. We are trying to arrange a time at the
conference when the Board presents itself to the attendees to discuss anything
of interest. It's about the only live MADA forum available (other than the
local affiliate meetings). This would be the time to bring up your concerns to
the whole Board.
 
Alternatively, there is nothing stopping anyone from conducting informal straw
polls or otherwise giving the Board direct feedback. Most of the Board read the
MacApp news groups and take the suggestions quite seriously, so even a poll may
be overkill. Any sufficiently long thread on a topic of interest to MADA is
taken quite seriously. Further, mail sent directly to MADA or to its Board
members is given equal weight. MADA hopes that its members feel free to
talk to the Steve (Manager), Eric (President), or any of its Board members
about questions or concerns.
 
We are currently trying to provide what's been called "transition assistance to
our members" because there's no doubt that that the world is in a state of
flux. For an example of how we're trying to do that look at the 1993 MADACON
agenda. Instead of 100% MacApp, you'll find about 30%. The rest of the program
covers alternatives, almost all of them Mac alternatives, with cross-platform
products and tools as well.
 
Mike said, "it is probably in [MADA's] interest to foster cross-platform
discussions but not at the exclusion of the Macintosh," and "if MADA doesn't
retain its focus on Macintosh then [the membership] might as well just
subscribe to JOOP, SCOOP, C++ Journal, etc. and attend their conferences."
There's quite a range of alternatives between "not at the exclusion of" and
"retain focus on". We're hoping to continue to provide the best OO information
for the best OO programmers in the business, our membership.
 
If you really feel like you can get what you want from JOOP, SCOOP, and
all their conferences, and that MADA has no added value, then we're clearly not
doing our job. We'd like to think that's not the case, and unless we hear from
our members, we'll never know. We sincerely appreciate your feedback, and
encourage all members to keep in touch with MADA to help us help you.
 
Steve Mann, MADA Manager
Eric Berdahl, MADA President