Re: PAM

[Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>]

>Erik did a nice job of pros and cons. I essentially agree with the reasons
"why we SHOULD join with PAM."
>
>Here are some comments on the other:
> 
>>
>>   * Once PAM has supplanted TAG, what is the AGA?  What's the point?
>>      Karen has said this is an important discussion, so why aren't
>>      we having this one FIRST, before deciding to trash the one
>>      major thing the AGA actually does currently?
>
>I agree. There are LOTS of things that AGA can and should do. However, PAM
does not free up many people. For the past 10 years, TAG was done with at
most 2-3 AGAers at one time. How will PAM make it easier for AGA to do
other things. What am I missing?  I WILL say that PAM could FORCE us to
define our mission and do something new. [BTW, I am flattered to think that
AGA=TAG, but I think that AGA is much more. We have a web page, we sell
interesting things, we have some good regional groups. We can and should do
more.]
>
>>   * Very little direct AGA involvement in PAM.  At best, our 4 pages are
>>      like a paid ad supplement.
>
>Dave has said that we can have more than 4 pages if we want. But 4 pages
is more AGA 'editorial' than we currently have in TAG. Now, there is my 1
pager which has a little AGA news and there is an occasional speakers
announcement or other message from the membership chair or SC chair.
Average page length is less than 2. With PAM's format, it might force us to
fill the 4 pages.
>
>>   * Potential need for hobbyist publication for rejected PAM articles.
>>      We might actually have more material for TAG that was rejected by
>>      PAM than we get for TAG nowadays! :)
>
>I can't argue with this. However, we won't know till it happens. If it
happens, then AGA could still distribute it. For example, put these
articles on a web page for minimal cost. Didn't Lass already suggest
something like this?
>
>>   * Because he's pushy and a salesman, Dave may also drive away
>>      potential partnershipts, and this will now be associated with AGA.
>
>I agree that this is an important issue. I think that Dave knows he is
agressive, but can be a pussycat when he wants to. Dave would be wise if he
asked for input from other folks on key PAM decisions. This could be the
roll of an AGA/PAM steering committee.  

>
>>   * AGA as a non-profit is now supporting PAM as a for-profit venture?
>
>       But AGA is a potential recipient of these so-called profits. I confess
that I don't understand the profit side of this venture.
>
>>   * Herlong.
>
>Dave has offered an alternative if he fails. Is there any perceived if
Herlong doesn't fail.
>>
>>
>>Some points which I think are "cautionary"... might go either way.
>>
>>   * In some past ventures, Dave has not showed a lot of staying power.
>>      Dunno, recently he may have gotten better with his CO2 business.
>>      However, it's probably irellevant: if PAM folds, we are back to
>>      where we were, just creating TAG.
>
>Dave has been selling stuff for AGA for several years. I think this
indicates staying power.