🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug5.113742.977@dragon.com>, cts@dragon.com writes:
>> I think so.  It sounds like Jeff thinks so.  I'd say the executive committee on
>> DECUServe is evenly split three ways on this - for, against, don't know.  
> 
> What's the best way to lobby the Decuserve exec?  Via mail (anyone have
> an address list handy?)

Well, since you are a DECUServe subscriber, you can log into DECUServe and send
mail to @exec.  For members of the net community, the list is as follows:
hahn@eisner.decus.org		- Chairman
ferguson@eisner.decus.org	- Vice-chair
johnson@eisner.decus.org	- Spokesperson
coy@eisner.decus.org		- Manager of System
roberts_d@eisner.decus.org	- Manager of moderators (me)
harvey@eisner.decus.org		- Customer service representative
furze@eisner.decus.org		- Member at large
simon_c@eisner.decus.org	- Member at large

We currently have one open member at large position :-)
> 
> [...] should revenue be an issue? [...]
>The purpose of the society is to promote 
> information exchange between members, not promote information change
> when the society can make a buck at it.  

DECUS has a mission.  If DECUS ceases to exist that mission cannot be
fulfilled.  DEC is not inclined at this time to spend much money on DECUS (does
anyone really have trouble understanding this right now?), so DECUS needs to be
pretty much self-supporting.  No one is going to pull them up if they lose
money, they would just go bye.  Get real.  Revenue is critical for DECUS right
now. 

>If I recall, the original intent
> as proposed was DECUServe be self supporting.  My speculation is that
> DECUServe has become a revenue stream, like symposia, 

Nope, DECUServe is slightly better than break even right now.  This is why we
felt comfortable with turning on bi-directional telnet, ftp and turning on
tymnet and isvnet, but are still uncomfortable with turning on bi-directional
news.

>however, given that there is generally
> an agreement both the net readers and the DECUServe readers would generally
> benefit from bi-directional access

Is there?  I agree, but others do not.  Help me convince them, this is a
non-obvious thing.  You're a subscriber, why aren't you lobbying for this in
DECUServe_FORUM?

> This being said, what would best provide for technical communications?  
> I personally think the greatest participation by the greatest number would
> be most benificial;  for every 1000 people or so that read it, one of those
> rare experts like Jamie or Terry Kennidy come along who provide invaluable
> advise and help to the other 999 of us.  Given my druthers, I'd like to 
> see full by directional access, with little or no controls (I could live
> with weeding out of the totally out of place stuff).

Idealism has a tendency to fail in practice, does it not?  We still need to
deal with the practical issues:  survival, paying the bills, politics (this is
practical?  never mind :-).

> And, let's assume that we want to, for whatever reason, not impact the
> DECUServe revenue stream.  I think this is doable for several reasons:
> 1)  The decuserve offering become more valuable due to wider participation.
> 2)  Many people do not have access to news and mail.  In addition to notes,
>     these added services may attract users.
> 3)  Value added services not readily available on the net.  For example,
>     access to the Sigtapes.  I would expect that a wider selection of
>     library offerings might attract more users.  Allow free access to 
>     information;  however, library access and such require membership.
>     There are a number of other value added services that could be added,
>     including access to compilers and tools.

You're preaching to the chior here on netnews.  Why don't you take it over to
DECUServe?
-- 
   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