🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug5.113742.977@dragon.com>, cts@dragon.com writes:
> when the society can make a buck at it.  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, which funds other
> things;  given the general shape of the economy, there are valid arguments
> for protecting any revenue stream;  however, given that there is generally
> an agreement both the net readers and the DECUServe readers would generally
> benefit from bi-directional access, we should ask the question:  Is the
> protection of this revenue stream getting in the way of the goals of the
> DECUServe project in specific, and in the goals of the Society in general?

DECUServe is a breakeven project for the Chapter.  It's margin (profit) runs 
around (+/-) $5,000/YR.  Over its life it has netted out to about a zero direct 
cost item for the Chapter.  DEC provided most of the initial hardware free of 
charge but DECUServe has had to pay for upgrades at internal transfer costs...

	MVII ---> 3900 ---> 4000-200

It was my contention when I was chair that even if DECUServe was free the
Chapter would have to continue to advertise its existance.  I also contended
that the Chapter would have to upgrade hardware faster.  Therefore there were
no cost savings in going no-fee.  It would have cost the Chapter about 120K/YR
to make DECUServe no-fee.

Sitting on the MC today if this proposal came back up two problems would be 
flagged.  Most of the MC would ask where is the 120K going to come from given 
20 percent budget cut.  I would also raise the question of better intergation 
with net land before we funded this.