RE: Review of DASC membership fees

My vote is:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] On Behalf
> Of Peter Ashenden
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:47 AM
> To: stds-dasc@eda.org
> Subject: Review of DASC membership fees
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The DASC Steering Committee reviewed the membership fees at its meeting on
> 12 November (see http://www.dasc.org/meetings/2004-11/.). This message is
> to ask you to review the recommendation and vote to approve the revised
> fee.
> There are two recommendations to review (see below). Would you please
> reply
> to me by email with your vote on each one. Since a 50% return is
> required,
> would you please vote even if only to abstain.
>
> The DASC-SC arrived at its recommendation by reviewing its operating
> expenses and other potential sources of revenue. Currently, the IEEE
> Computer Society funds our operating deficit to a reasonable amount. The
> DASC-SC considers this to be a revenue contribution. The DASC-SC will
> also
> seek contributions from other sources, including IEEE-SA and external
> bodies
> with an interest in DASC activities. The recommended membership fees seek
> to match these contributions.
>
> Would DASC members please vote on the following:
>
> 1. That the fee for individual members be $US100 from 2005 onwards.
>
> ____ Affirmative (comments optional)
>
> ____ Negative (no comment)
>
> __x__ Negative (with comments...)
>
> ____ Abstain
>
> Comments: ...

I would accept a higher rate, on the principle that we need more funding to
be more effective. As a gesture of commitment of the members, it should
help garner outside sources. It should come first. I think $100 is too much,
will shrink the membership, is an unclear source to increase overall
funding. It makes it nebulous to me whether it will even encourage outside
funding sources.

>
> 2. That:
> - DASC entity membership be extended to IEEE-SA Corporate members, and
> - entities be allowed DASC membership at the same fee structure used
> for IEEE-SA corporate membership and with a number of DASC individual
> memberships equal to the number of SA individual memberships granted
> to SA corporate members
> (see http://standards.ieee.org/sa-mem/corporate.html), and
> - the DASC request IEEE-SA to mutually extend membership to DASC entity
> members.
>
> ____ Affirmative (comments optional)
>
> ____ Negative (no comment)
>
> __x__ Negative (with comments...)
>
> ____ Abstain
>
> Comments: ...

This provides no clear path to improving DASC revenues. I would like to see
a clearer funding model than this. Some examples that are clearer but are
not viewed as feasible are sources derived from sales of standard
publications, sponsorship based on matching funds raised by the DASC (from
individual membership fees, not bake sales), and/or a budget allocated from
IEEE membership dues.

>
> Thanks, and regards,
>
> Peter Ashenden
> DASC Chair
>
> --
> Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au
> Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au
> PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532
> Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
> Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
>

John Shields
Lynguent, Inc.
Received on Mon Nov 22 22:43:01 2004