Re: (erielack) My $.02 worth concerning the recent ELHS rant

[Kevin DeGroff <kadegroff_@_xtn.net>]

> Then, when we compare any of those numbers with the number of people corresponding or speaking to the situation 
 > -- pro, con, indeterminant -- we will realize that nobody, in the overall, cares.


Sounds like there needs to be time set aside at the next convention for discussion like this.  From the sound of
things, the dissenters showed up in Jamestown but weren't given the stage time to make their points.




> Yes, we need new members.  Don't we?  How many are joining new each year?  How do we get them?  How could we get more?
> 
> How many are leaving?  How could we keep them?
> 
> These are the issues.  Why can't somebody address them instead of endless sniping at each other in front of the kids?


Schuyler?  Larry?  Rich?   Your thoughts on these issues laid out by Randy?




> Again -- I really would like to know what our highest member ID number is.  It would tell us a lot.  It should be 
 > available from the rolls or the mailing list.


This fascination with "the highest number" is not a good measure.  In my brief 2-week membership tenure, I got the
impression that the number that was issued to me was an open number that had been 'recycled' (mine was #3075, but other
new enrollees at the time were being given numbers that were much higher).  Its impossible to make solid conclusions
about membership characteristics based on "the number" when we can't really verify how the person who doles the numbers
out "does his thing".

A bigger measure of satisfaction would be the degree of "churn" in the numbers, not just the numerical high water mark.
I don't think the ELHS membership numbering system is designed to measure such churn.

------------------------------