Subject: Re: DASC membership
From: Gabe Moretti (gmoretti@comcast.net)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 05:44:40 PDT
I believe there is a solution to this issue that will entail a bit more work
on the part of the DASC, but will definitely bring this important matter
under our control.
It is fine to rely on an "outside" organization for administrative help when
such organization has the resources and will to implement the function in a
timely manner. In the case of the DASC membership, it is obvious that the
Computer Society, in spite of its recognition of responsibility, does not
have the "assets" to perform the job in a satisfactory manner. It may be
that the DASC has little visibility within IEEE-CS, it may just be that the
revenues do not even cover the administrative cost. Whatever the reason we
should collect our own dues and keep our own membership list. Beginning
next year, the dues should be sent to the Treasurer of the DASC who will be
responsible for maintaining an up-to-date list of payments, see to it that
the funds are properly deposited, and keep an up-to-date list of members
available upon demand and at each DASC meeting. In this way the list will
not be on the web, yet it will be readily available. We can even go a step
further, with little overhead, and send notices of renewal to the members at
the appropriate time, in addition to the usual solicitation for new members.
In the present circumstances the job of the treasurer is trivial at best.
Unfortunately an organization is only as effective as its finances are
sound: the DASC finances are not sound. We have two choices: get our
financial house in order or become a trivial collections of standard makers
with the ability and willingness to develop good standards but incapable of
giving our work the credibility required to complete the standards.
Without proper management, engineering excellence is lost in the noise.
Gabe Moretti
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Willis" <john.willis@ftlsys.com>
To: "Evan Lavelle" <eml@riverside-machines.com>; <mac@verisity.com>
Cc: "John Daniel" <jw.daniel@computer.org>; <stds-dasc@dasc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: DASC membership
> Mac and Evan,
>
> Since the issue of DASC membership is suddenly raised
> as a potentially material issue, Mac's previous email
> raises several important procedural questions regarding
> administration of DASC membership.
>
> I believe IEEE offered to handle this administrative
> issue several years ago as part of their SA effort and
> the offer was qcuikly accepted. Previously it was
> handled directly by DASC or a subcontractor. When the
> membership rules were initially set, contents of the
> membership list were commonly available to DASC at
> each regular meeting.
>
> As DASC secretary, we do have capability to publish the
> membership list (at no cost to DASC) and there has been
> previous interest in doing so for the reasons MAC noted.
> There was concern that such release on a web site might
> be mis-used for SPAM programming. Currently the gate
> appears to be the ongoing time and cost of getting the
> list from IEEE SA.
>
> Until the issue became material and Paul pushed on the
> SA to produce a list, the DASC secretary did not have
> access to the list either and thus COULD NOT support
> directly any compliance measures by chairs.
>
> If information required to implement DASC rules was not
> available to DASC, I question if a working group can be
> held in material violation for not implementing such
> rules.
>
> I suggest that we must reconcile membership requirements
> with availability of the membership list to DASC officers.
>
> John Willis
> DASC Secretary
>
> --On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:14 AM +0100 Evan Lavelle
> <eml@riverside-machines.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael McNamara wrote:
> >
> > > Separately, I have asked you twice via email to you for a copy of
> > the > current membership of DASC, so that I could verify the
> > membership of > the Working Group members, and have not received a
> > reply; likely it is > in your queue of work.
> >
> > Paul appears to be away this week. I've attached a spreadsheet that
> > he received from John Daniel, and posted here last month, with the
> > current membership as of 28th May.
> >
> > > We might also publish the membership somewhere.
> >
> > I'm not sure that this would achieve anything, unless the list was
> > automated (which isn't likely with a $40 membership fee). With the
> > current level of membership, there should be an expiry and a renewal
> > pretty much every week of the year. WGs would probably still need to
> > verify membership by contacting the IEEE directly.
> >
> > In any event, if a list is published, no email addresses please.
> >
> > Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 05:54:14 PDT