The Shape of Things To Come
by Jim Holmes
This column is prompted by Margaret Rosenberg's editorial in
the April,'86 issue of DOG Bytes, newsletter of the Denver, CO
Osborne Group. The issue she raises "ain't new" but it is getting
more serious. I know of none more important to the members of
this (or any other) group. As Margaret puts it,
"We are losing members."
While her editorial should be read in full (get a copy of the
"issue disk" from the Public Domain librarian), let me summarize
before I comment on her main points. Margaret identifies the
following reasons for the decline in membership:
1. Many members who use PC/MS-DOS machines at work have
had to "switch" their home systems as well. They now
are getting less support from the group, which is still
mainly based in CP/M.
2. Fewer new members are joining. We've "lost" members
every year since we began, yet each time a few new
members found us, so our membership remained fairly
strong. Further, the individual contributions to group
projects (such as articles for the newsletter, etc.) is
declining; we now offer fewer incentives to prospective
new members, and they aren't joining.
3. Attempts to deal with these problems through support
for MS-DOS has apparently made some die-hard CP/Mer's
feel "abandoned", leading to a drop in both their input
and attendance.
She continues, offering the following solutions as a base on
which to build:
A. Greater involvement on the part of ALL the current
membership. She urges everyone to write a "letter to
the Editor", call a Board member or bring up ideas at
the General Meetings.
B. Continuing support for MS-DOS will "keep our experts in
the fold" as well as build those resources we will all
need when we too must, "make the switch."
C. Continuing support for CP/M should be maintained for
the members who choose to "stay with it"... and for any
novices who may acquire those "used" Ozzies, etc. as a
"first computer."
D. Through keeping the Newsletter "available" to users of
both CP/M and MS-DOS, further fractionalization can be
avoided.
E. A change of name for the group may be in order, to one
which better reflects our current direction. The group
acronym should be retained for identification, but some
new name (not using Osborne) might attract interest.
While I agree in theory with Margaret on all points, I think
full involvement on the part of all our members is an unrealistic
goal, although a desirable one. When I joined the Board at OKOK
(Pasadena, CA) two years ago, it was my mission to find ways of
increasing member involvement. I feel we've been successful in
doing this, yet our membership has also declined during the
period. A Member Survey revealed that most members "see no way"
to "re-involve" those who have left (for whatever reason), or to
stimulate current members to "do more" than they are apparently
willing to do "on their own".
I don't accept these findings in so far as individuals are
concerned, but it's probably true that a programatic approach to
stimulating members to contribute time & energy to group projects
won't produce much.
OKOK is now a smaller, yet more active group. That's fine up
to a point; but as the group gets smaller so do our sources for
aid to new users, technical advice of a higher order, etc. It's
much harder to get articles for the newsletter, form classes on
some application or update the Public Domain library.
Most of these functions have been assumed by the same few
individuals who had already been serving in other capacities. As
they get "snowed under", they may either withdraw entirely or
simply "back off" regarding further contributions. Other members,
observing the load currently being shouldered by "the few", might
be reluctant to "step into" such big shoes. Either way, a lot of
potentially useful things won't get done. We must change this, or
we WILL BE offering new members less than in previous years.
A bit ago I said I didn't feel we could get every member to
contribute, no matter how we try. Let me explain myself on that.
When OKOK was formed (and most groups, I'd imagine) the few
original members were mainly hobbyists or computer professionals,
eager to share with peers in the experience of having "their own"
computer (as opposed to "the one at work"). Two years later, most
new members (like myself) were joining to get help from these old
pro's in learning to use this "strange and unfamiliar" tool.
This is more true today than ever... but a further problem
is that a large number of our current one-and-two-year members
still THINK OF THEMSELVES as neophytes. Most know far more about
their system and some applications than they think, but it really
doesn't help much to tell them so. It's not so much an unwilling
attitude, but the belief that "I have nothing to share of value"
which keeps many members from contributing.
If those individuals who DO contribute "work smarter", we
can in time inspire a few more workers; let those few content to
"pay their dues and take what they can get" continue doing this.
Their number is small, and effort spent on reaching them are
better put to other purposes. At the same time, we must take full
advantage of whatever help we are offered. This requires
preparation, and a first order of business is defining our
priorities.
One Board member told me recently, "When someone offers to
put in a "...couple of hours, if it would help", I always ask for
some commitment on a regular basis; otherwise it's not worth the
time I'd spend showing them what to do." I understand, but he's
wrong. I'd give the volunteer some Xeroxed pages containing good
articles from magazines (or other newsletters) to be keyed in and
returned. Another useful project is phoning members updating the
Club's member information file re hardware s/he has added, etc.
During a recent meeting of the FOG trustees, I'm told that
someone said, "If you want a better class of volunteers, you'll
have to pay them more!" It's funny, but it does define the main
problem in every volunteer organization... "Who's responsible?".
What I'm saying is, don't take the attitude that the Group's
problems are "everyone's concern"; what can YOU do to help? How
long since you shared something with other members? "Paying your
dues" involves more than writing out a check. If you're a regular
contributor, how can you be more effective without having to give
still more time? If you aren't doing anything now (but are afraid
of getting "overloaded" if you DO volunteer) sit down and define
carefully what you COULD offer, then "stick to it". If you think
that "someone should..." (but you aren't able to do it yourself),
don't just "suggest" it; think of a person who could do it, then
"sell it" to them. If your idea's sound, they'll at least help.
Speaking of selling... Bob Lay, Editor of Q-Bits (newsletter
of QCOUG) offers this thought for inspiring personal incentive to
"work to help the Group survive" among those contemplating buying
an IBM or "clone"; "Where do you think you'll find a buyer for an
Ozzie, once the group is "dead"... or did you simply plan to put
it out along with the bottles and cans some Tuesday morning?
The day may come when I will switch systems, but my guess is
it won't be to MS-DOS. In that far-distant future (two or three
years hence) I'll likely want to move up to something like the
UTOPIA-III... a 32-bit system with 10,240K of RAM, a 160 megabyte
solid-state hard drive with automatic instantaneous backup system
to streaming tape, etc. While my basic system will probably have
only two of the new 10 meg "drives" (using those removable quartz
crystals), I can always add the others later if I need them.
My one concern at that time will likely be the controversy
over support for RAPI-DOS, the new operating system which permits
true multi-tasking between (up to eight) continuously updated
applications. A coalition made up of our seven remaining Osborne
owners plus fifteen of twenty-one who own an IBM-PC or "clone"
will loudly be proclaiming the "end of the Club" if we "admit the
usurper to our cloistered halls".