Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:00:30 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The End of Austerity?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

> kfl at keithlynch.net 01/14/04 10:32PM
>
>>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.

Let me suggest this re the WSFA Press books:  this is a good idea IF there =
is a mechanism set up to deal with the shipping. i.e. some willing person =
to do all of that work.

Another option would be to run the operation through my website and my =
fullfilment company in NH.  They take a flat 10% of net billing, they have =
a toll free number, secure shopping cart, essentially the usual bell & =
whistles you'd expect.

>
>* 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.

The ideas presented above sound quite interesting.  What sort of money are =
we talking about?

>
>> 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.

Granted, but the I don't think we another Balticon.  Also, Balticon is a =
lot of work, more than this club has ever shown any interest in pursuing.  =
During it's "big" years, Disclave was pretty much the same size as =
Balticon, but it wasn't Balticon.

>
>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.

Fans aren't slans.  You'd sorta think that SF fans, believers in the =
future, in change, folks who can deal with "future shock" could deal with =
a different hotel and/or date.  Apparently not.

But yes, it would be useful to be in the same place for a few years.  If =
nothing else we learn how to make use of the hotel, the hotel gets use to =
us.

>
>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.

Ideally if we get enough room nights we get free function space. In =
theory; of course it depends upon the hotel contract.

As for locals . . . we just need to find them.  Last time I checked most =
bookstores sold SF - think there could be potential Capclave attendees =
there?

>
>> 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.

Let me 'splain why I think we should do "something" with the money.

There are on the WFC Board a few folks who believe WFC is a "professional" =
con, not for the fans.  Well, without the "fans" they'd have no WFC.

There are Smoffish folks who disdain WFC because it is so "pro" oriented, =
that it's not really a "fan" convention.

Screw both camps.

I'd like to see some, I said some, of the money spent for some fannish =
good.

Now what that is, I don't know.  I don't think it's a student writing =
contest that has spent an average of $10,000 a year.

That said, we do need to be careful with what we spend this new found =
wealth on.  I do think Keith's suggestion regarding our Austerity Program =
needing to be dropped should be acted on.

>
>> 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.

Silly is a good understatement.

>
>> 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.

Officers yes (unless there is some problem that can't be reseolved).
For club members, it should remain optional.

mjw

>--
>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.
>