Re: Review of DASC membership fees

John,

OK, I see what the $2.50 is now. Of course, as it is, there are no DASC
meetings as the business meetings are DASC-SC meetings. So maybe the
$2.50 is too high. :)

I know you are a promote the thought of more telephonic meetings. But
I've also been impressed by other geographic regions where English is a
second language where they seek more face-to-face meetings in their
locations. But even these meetings need to be more than just DASC-SC
meetings. if the DASC is ever going to think about this, it will need
to have a bigger budget.

Thanks for the clarification.

-Dennis

--
Dennis Brophy                                Email: dennisb@model.com
Director of Strategic Business Development   Phone: +1 503-685-0893
Mentor Graphics Corporation                    Fax: +1 503-685-0923
8005 Boeckman Rd, Bldg E-4                  Mobile: +1 503-706-8987
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777                Home Fax: +1 503-579-2664
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org <owner-stds-dasc@eda.org>
To: stds-dasc@eda.org <stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Fri Nov 19 21:26:21 2004
Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees
Hi Dennis.
Brophy, Dennis wrote:
> John,
> 
>   What's the $2.50 for?  I can't even buy a cup of coffee for that.  
> 
> -Dennis 
First of all, why should DASC dues go to purchase of coffee?
Wouldn't a hosting organization provide coffee free?
Why does SC want dues at $100?  This never has been
explained, and I assume it is for travel and lodging.
More quantitatively than the $100 proposed,
the $2.50 is my estimate of the connection cost of
four annual DASC voice-conferenced meetings.  Assume
100 members ==> $250 total DASC annual income and between
$50 and $100 per two-hour meeting.
More accurate estimates would be welcome.
What would DASC be doing to spend $100 x 100 = $10,000/year?
I'm talking about NEXT YEAR, not last year.
The typical WG meets numerous times/year, mostly by
Email and voice conference, and requires dues of $0.00/year.
Yes, as Alex pointed out, this is a NEGATIVE message.
But, negative feedback should be appreciated by engineers,
in view of the destructive, disruptive effects of the
alternative -- positive feedback.
Does the SC really have to steer us backward in time, to
the days of travellers to medieval festivals?  If so,
where do we go from there?
We need some better thinking, and some imagination.
For example, if DASC fees were raised to $100, then
anyone attending a meeting should have the same vote
as a DASC member.   Members with money to give away to
the SC then could contribute; others would suffer no
loss by not having done so.  And only persons willing to
spend the time (not place) at a meeting would vote.
Another way would be to allow voting only by DASC
members but either during a meeting
or later, on motions appearing in the Minutes.  This
should remove the main reason for spending money on
travel.   Then DASC membership fees could be lowered.
An accounting of the $100 proposed to a vote would
facilitate intelligent consideration of it and of
alternatives.
-- 
                          John
                      jwill@AstraGate.net
                      John Michael Williams
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On
Behalf
> Of John Michael Williams
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:06 PM
> To: stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: Review of DASC membership fees
> 
> All.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason DASC can not flourish on about twice the
> same TOTAL income as a typical small WG.
> 
> That would pay for phone conferencing or even videoconferencing (with
> corporate facility donation help) at meetings.
> 
> That would come to a dues assessment of about $2.50 per DASC member.
> 
> It is unclear to me whether the Steering Committee should go out of
> business.