jhl@nancy.egr.msu.edu (John Lawitzke) (04/02/88)
This past week, I received by ballot for board members, included in the mailing was several pages of statements by the candidates. Two days later, I receive the most recent ;login: which contained the same statements. Now, I do agree that the statemenst are necessary for the memebership to elect board members. HOWEVER, the ballot and return envelope could have been included in the ;login: and save the cost of the extra mailing and the cost to reproduce the extra statements. If the governing members of USENIX feel it is necessary to spend the membership's membership fees in this way, at least the information should not have been duplicated in ;login: and the 13 pages that were used could have contained articles of a technical nature. Except for the article "An Update on UNIX and C Standards Activities" ;login: was very sparse in meaningful content this time around. j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!ipecac!jhl "And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@msudoc.egr.msu.edu (35.8.8.108)
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (04/03/88)
One reason, and I don't know if this is the case for USENIX as it is for other professional societies, is that the ballots sent by themselves can be sent first class. This assures that the voting membership gets the ballots and information in light of address changes and other problems that will befall the more cheaply mailed newsletters. -Ron
bob@rel.eds.com (Bob Leffler) (04/03/88)
In article <374@nancy.UUCP>, jhl@nancy.egr.msu.edu (John Lawitzke) writes: > article "An Update on UNIX and C Standards Activities" ;login: was very > sparse in meaningful content this time around. I agree! I think the duplication of material in the direct mailing and in ;login: was a complete waste of resources. -- Bob Leffler - EDS, GM Truck & Bus Account (313)456-5375 bob@rel.eds.com or {uunet!edsews, rutgers, umix}!rel!bob Opinions expressed may not be those of my employer.