From: "Erica VD Ginter" <eginter at klgai.com>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re: New people and old-timers
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:06:37 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Elspeth Krisor was a different Elspeth. I think she and her husband moved
away. Anyway, they're no longer around.

1984 was when I first started seriously attending WSFA, although I had been
showing up very rarely since 1982.

For the record...

Erica

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith F. Lynch [mailto:kfl at KeithLynch.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 2:08 PM
To: WSFA members
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New people and old-timers

Sam Lubell <samlubell at verizon.net> wrote:

> Keith, I'm confused by this list.  When you say 2 in 1984, do you mean
> two new people joined in 84 or that two new people who joined in 84
> are still around today?

I mean that of the 85 people who have attended at least three meetings in
the past two and a quarter years (i.e. since the beginning of 2002), two
were first mentioned in the WSFA Journal in 1984.  Specifically, Erica
Ginter and Meridel Newton.  (Meridel was born that year.)

(Actually, Erica was first listed in the January '85 issue, but in the
"Additions & Corrections" to the "1984 WSFA Xmas List," so I gave her credit
for 1984.)

Please tell me how I could have phrased it more clearly.

> So yes, what we should try to figure out what we did in 2001 and
> 2002 that brought in so many new members, ...

I'd love to take credit for it, with the web page and the emailed
directions.  But I think that spike is an illusion, i.e. that we would see a
similar spike for 1991 and 1992 if we looked at those who attended three or
more meetings in 1992 and 1993.  Unfortunately, nobody took attendance in
1992 or 1993, so we'll never know.

Anyhow, it wasn't just 2001 and 2002.  We got more in 2003 than in 2002,
and, adjusting for this year being only 1/4th over, it looks like 2004 will
be a record year.  That is, if you ignore the likelihood that many of each
year's people will drift away.  Some in a year, some in two years, some in
five.

> but I don't think there are two different populations in WSFA other
> than active and nonactive.

I agree.

> As for being nominated for president, I'd be honored to serve.

You show up to almost every meeting, you've done lots of work, you know how
things are done, you have a reasonably loud voice, and nobody else has
expressed any interest in running, so you're the trustees'
candidate for president, unless the other two trustees object.