Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:37:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New officers
Cc: JEKindell at aol.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Cathy['s] been a department head, handling registration, for the
> past couple of cons and I'm hoping that she's willing to run for
> president.

On Tuesday Adrienne wrote "I've heard from Sam Lubell that he would
be willing to warm the President's chair for a while, and Cathy is
willing to stay on as VP."  And Bob MacIntosh had said at the meeting
that Judy wants to step down.  But I haven't yet heard directly from
Sam, Cathy, or Judy about who wants to be, or stop being, president
or vice president.  Nor have I heard from Barry, whom you suggest
as vice president.

> I'd do so solely on the basis of the fact that I think she'd do an
> excellent job but she also has strong ties to WSFA's 'new blood',
> the folks who've joined in the past couple of years.

One of the things I plan to add to this year's attendance report, now
that I finally have enough Journals online for it to be feasible, is
what year each person was first mentioned in the Journal, which should
be pretty close to when they first started attending meetings, even in
the years when attendance wasn't taken.  Of course some will still be
listed as having been WSFAns since "time immemorial," but at least
this will make it clear whether there are two or more distinct classes
of WSFAns, in terms of when people joined, as you imply, or whether a
few people joined each year, resulting in an continuum with no gaps.

(Speaking of which, in searching the old Journals for your name, I
see an Elspeth Kriser, Krisor, or Kristor who attended in the 80s.
Is that a typo for your name?  Was your phone number ever 330-1366?)

> Um, shouldn't that be 'if'? <g> The trustees slate is just that,
> although we've a habit of simply voting people into office.

Sure.  But I figure the trustees' slate ought to be a coherent whole,
rather than having two people listed for one office, or one person
listed for two offices, or some offices left empty, and throwing it
back to the membership to decide.  So if I am on the trustees' slate
as secretary, the slate will also need one new candidate for trustee.
And if Steve Smith is on the trustees' slate as vice president, the
slate will also need a second new candidate for trustee.

> Your comment about "preference will be given . . ." caught my
> attention.  I assume that you're talking about who will wind up
> on the trustees slate, rather than how people will vote?

Of course.  I have no control over the latter, except through my
powers of persuasion.

> Anyway, while writing this I've been thinking about that and
> considering how active various people are in WSFA.  Showing up at
> meetings is one of measuring that, and your report lays that out.
> What I've also been thinking about is how much work people do, and
> how much care and concern they have for WSFA.  Lots of folks show
> up at meetings and just hang out -- WSFA is, after all, first and
> foremost a social organization and that's what we're here for.
> We're good at it.

Certainly.  That's why the sentence you quoted part of began "All else
being equal".  And why last year's attendance report, in the April '03
Journal, intended primarily to guide last years' trustees, said:

  A J before the person's name means they've contributed to the WSFA
  Journal during this period, an L means they're on the WSFA email list,
  an O means they're an officer, and an M means they've hosted one or
  more events to which all WSFAns were invited during this period.  I do
  not have information on who is a paid member, or on who has attended
  Capclave.

I plan to add the same information to this year's report, and am open
to suggestions for additional fields.  I prefer something objective,
such as the above, rather than something fuzzy like "really helped out
at Capclave," since the latter could lead to Dunegatism.  "You listed
him, but I helped out twice as much at Capclave as him!"

I really do want to give preference to people who show up, since it
seems to me the greatest danger of a split in the club isn't between
new people and old-timers, but between people who show up and people
who do the work, if those are two different groups of people.  For
instance SMOFcon seems to be mostly Peggy Rae, who has attended just
two of the 102 meetings so far in the '00s, and Mike Nelson, who has
attended just one of the six meetings so far this year.  (And neither
of them is on this list, either.)  This led to there being two
unrelated web pages for our SMOFcon, and the guy at SMOFcon.org
is probably really wondering about us.