From: gwlester@cpu.com (Gerald W. Lester)
Subject: Re: EXECUTION of DECUS Standards
Organization: Computerized Processes Unlimited, Metairie, LA, (504)-889-2784
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:25:57 GMT
Reply-To: gwlester@cpu.com
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec14.151045@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>
>It should perhaps be made clear to the membership that they only get to vote on
>the membership of the BOD. Other representative units of DECUS are elected
>solely by the leadership. It should be made clear up front that members who are
>not leaders have no voice in how things are done other than by their BOD votes.
>This might avoid some of the confusion. 

	It might avoid some confusion, but the statement is **WRONG**!!
At least the L&T and 3P SIG chairs are elected by the general membership at
their respective Open SIG Steering Committe meetings members (not restricted
to leaders) present.  I believe that L&T does put a restriction that DEC
employees can not vote, but I'm not sure.

>
>DCS is a closed system. It is only available to the leadership. (I could also
>argue that DECUServe is a closed system, but I know I'm a minority in that
>opinion.) However, DCS membership isn't open even to people willing to pay, only
>to the leadership.

	Several (most?) of the groups have shared conferences with DECUServe.
Some of the leaders actually read this newsgroup.

>
>Reactive representation is even slower than full democracy. I don't get a chance
>to vote on an issue by voting out a member of the BOD very often.  Besides, I've
>yet to see anyone disclose the voting records of the BOD. I asked once, and as
>expected, no answer.
>

	I have, occasionally, seen BOD votes published in DECUScope.

>
>Maybe I'm a minority, but the newsletters were my one regular contact with the
>society. And what I read the most were the standards reports. I will miss both.
>Now I hardly feel like I have a connection to DECUS. (Now would be a bad time to
>ask me to pay money, btw, to comment on another issue being discussed, unless I
>got some new product in return.) And I'm more connected to DECUS than
>somepeople, as I am a volunteer (I manage VMSnet).
>

	You are very much a minority.  The news letter subscription was about
2% of the membership and a good number of subscribers had/have either or both
DECUServe or DCS accounts.

>
>But if change is to be both rapid and useful, it needs to be responsive to the
>needs of the membership. You have lots of people rowing the boat, but you should
>also take some input on direction from the passengers. Oarsman face the rear of
>the boat, and  can only see where they've been, not where they're going. You
>should ask the passengers where they want to go, or they'll just find a boat
>going in a direction they prefer.
>

	For some, (I will admit not all) things this has been done.  But it has
lately been done with focus groups to reduce cost.  The poller's that have done
the groups state that they are statistically representative of the members.

>
>I'm a volunteer, and my only representatives are the BOD. ...

	This would then be a problem with how the VMS SIG is organized.  Please
flame them on this issue.

>
>So if Charles and I vote to make Loren our representative, will he get to vote
>on the MC? I didn't think so.
>

	No, you need three other DECUS members to form a SIG.  Then you can
elect represetatives who can vote, at least at the SIG council level.

>
>In a representative democracy, every decision is open to public debate. ...

	Not quite true, but close enough (try getting in on some of the debates
held by the National Security Council or some Senate sub-committes dealing with 
"security").

>
>My, wouldn't that be gracious of our mythical sig chair? But the implication is
>that most of them wouldn't bother, right? That's the impression I'm getting from
>all this, anyway.
>

	Most of them DID NOT bother.

>And ironically, most analysts would say that one of the big changes is that
>standards are becoming enormously more important. Heck, even DEC (both Olsen and
>Palmer) agree with this. Ironic that DECUS has decided to buck this trend. The
>users won't though. This is a clear case, IMHO, of DECUS parting company from
>the membership in terms of its priorities.
>...
>I highly doubt that the only people in the society that think involvement in
>standards are worthwhile are the standards reps, as you seem to be implying. I,
>for one, consider it vital. I used to get more info on the progress of some
>standards of interest to me from the DECUS newsletters than I get from the
>approx. 10 different trade magazines I subscribe to.


	I tend to agree, but unlike the U.S. goverment, DECUS can not (to
please the vocal voters) spend money that it does not have.


	<< Much was cut, there were several layers of quotes>>