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".