Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:32:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at keithlynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The End of Austerity?
Cc: jekindell at aol.com, macbuccfo at email.msn.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> We've had problems with the website where it is and it doesn't
> support the WSFA mailing list.  We're using this host because
> at one time they gave us certain considerations.

True.  Or rather because the company that gave us free hosting went
out of business and sold all their clients to another company.  Which
in turn went out of business and sold all their clients to yet another
company.  Which is where we are now.

Some things we could have, but don't:

* A WSFA.ORG email address.  Or better yet, a WSFA.ORG email address
  for each WSFA member, plus one for contacting us, and one more for
  this list.

* The ability to sell things online, e.g. convention memberships,
  and the remaining WSFA Press books.

* More disk space.  Our present hosting company doesn't seem to keep
  track, and there's no easy way for us to measure it, but I'm pretty
  sure we're way over what we're supposedly paying for.  (On the other
  hand, we're paying for Unix hosting, but just getting NT.)

* Unix hosting, with a shell account.  This allows greater power
  and flexibility, as well as greater security against break-ins
  and viruses.

These would all be nice, but I am not pushing for them.

> We may want to spend some building up Capclave as the 'premier
> convention of it's kind' in the area but that will mean deciding
> what 'it's kind' means.  Balticon is already doing the big tent
> thing, with literary, consumers, gaming, anime, et al.  Do we want
> to compete with them or do we want to specialize?

I don't think "doing the big tent thing" is competing with Balticon,
since we're in a different city and a different time of year.

I'm not sure that what we're doing now is working, since we've had
fewer people every year.  Maybe this decline will stop if we can
keep the same hotel and same weekend for a few years, I don't know.

I think we should also focus more on locals than on out-of-towners,
(e.g. we should expect fewer room nights), since fewer people are
traveling, what with the economy and what with the many airline
security horror stories.

> That's a far different discussion than what to do with the WFC
> money.

True.  I don't think "what to do with the WFC money" should even be
discussed, per se.  Instead, we should go back to paying for what the
club paid for before the demise of Disclave, and halt the inconvenient
austerity measures that were appropriate only when we were in grave
danger of imminent bankruptcy.  I don't think we should be donating
thousands of dollars to the student contest or to anything else.
I'm comfortable with most of the money just sitting there unused
for years, a reserve for emergencies.

> In any event all of this is going to require a lot of talking over.
> We have plenty of time: the money isn't going anywhere.

True.  But we *do* need to get more website sponsors, soon, if the
club doesn't start paying for the website directly.  And it seems
silly to ask members to donate money for such a purpose when the
club is now wealthier than many of its members.

> I am sending this to Judy and Bob since I know that Judy isn't
> currently subscribed to the WSFA list and I can't tell from Keith's
> reports if Bob is.

He's not.  See http://www.wsfa.org/list/subscribers.htm to see who is
on the list.  Sam is on the list, so there's no need to CC him.

I don't know why Judy and Bob aren't subscribers.  I think every WSFA
officer should be.  Better yet, every WSFA member.
--
Keith F. Lynch - kfl at keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable.  Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.