Re: Communication (fwd)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

I have waited a day so before sending this, as to be sure I wasn't just
saying things purely out of anger.  Sure enough, I feel more or less the
same way about all the points, so I'm sending it as is.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:24:30 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Dave Gomberg wrote:

> >I don't know what else has been going around this week, but all the
> >discussions I've been involved with have centered on investment and
> >influence, the AGA's pre-natal existance as a true organization, and its
> >impediment towards negotiation with you/PAM.
> 
> Neither investment or influence are germane (in my mind) to the issue of
> whether PAM subs are a good thing for AGA members, which was the prior
> vote.

OK, I'm torqued now.

This was something we went around and around and around with in New
Jersey.  IN YOUR MIND they're orthoganal to each other.  From the AGA's
position, SUBSCRIBING AND INFLUENCE ARE INSEPARABLE.

I think treating this as "should aga members be subscribed to PAM" is the
single STUPIDEST decision we could as an organization decide to make.  We
might as well make the decison "should AGA members be subscribed to AFM".
Hey, an AFM subscription's only $12 a year too, and it comes out every
month. But WHY would we want to do this?  What's the point?  The AGA wants
to be INVOLVED in a project, not just be passive recipients of whatever
you and your "PAM board" choose to throw at your subscribers.  YES I AM
SHOUTING.  

Now, if you make the question "should the AGA be INVOLVED in PAM?" I think
it becomes more of something we are interested in.  Certainly that's what
I heard from Mary and the others in New Jersey.  And I beleive this is
what we voted on, not "should the AGA be subscribed to PAM".  And if the
former issue is what we voted on, I hereby retract that vote (which was
conditional on getting these pending details worked out anyway).

I explained to the rest of the MC last week that influence and control DO
come with subscribing, especially in the situation where the AGA may carry
nearly 100% of PAM's subscriber base.

I've really started to think that this is not a good match for either side
at this time.  I've made it fairly public that (to me) the decision
"doesn't feel right" for the AGA... now I'm finding out that it might not
be right for you either... We do not have the organizational skills yet
that you require to interact with, and you are in too much of a hurry to
get issue #1 out to wait for the possible eternity for us to get our
management together.  Shoot, it sounded like you scared Mary half to death
by telling her the AGA insert "was due by the 1st of the year".  Becuase
this issue of PAM is on the table chronologically in front of all our
other (and IMHO more important to the AGA as an organization) issues, we
are now in a deadlock.  The PAM decisions really cannot proceed without us
having our organization working effectively, tax ID status, understanding
of AGA future, etc.  But those decisions cannot proceed because we've got
this !@&^#$ PAM monster sitting on the table.  We're doing this wrong.  
We need to table PAM, determine where we're going, and *then* get back to
it.  We are the proverbial monkey with its fist in the jar right now.

> We now need to implement the prior vote with an agreement.  From
> what I hear there has been a lot of thinking that AGA should NOT invest in
> PAM, which is what I have maintained all along.  I think that reinventing
> itself is a big enough task for AGA without having to worry about the
> future financial health of PAM at the same time.

This is the conclusion that all those who have spoken last week have
reached.

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com