From: m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone)
Subject: Re: Membership fee for DECUS?
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division, Portsmouth, RI
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:06:51 GMT

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.
Newsgroups: comp.org.decus