At 12:31 PM 10/18/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Having been put in charge of publications I would have looked at the chart
>and would like to try the following trial balloon model.
>
>1. The ACH alters their relationship with CHUM so that member do not have
>to subscribe to CHUM. It continues to be a choice (ie. they can pay an
>extra $50 or so to also get CHUM.)
As Julia suggested, I doubt that this price would hold if CHUM were no
longer the official ACH journal. It would be more like twice that. We
could, of course, propose an opt-in-to-CHUM option across the affiliated
organizations, and propose some rate for that, as an add-on to any
membership. They might go for that, if there were enough potential customers.
>2. The LLC becomes the journal of the ACH and the subscription cost of LLC
>is woven into ACH membership fees.
We should think of this in different terms--those are CHUM terms, and part
of the exercise here is to get away from a model in which subscription fees
for the journal are woven into (and taken out of) membership fees. What's
really going to happen, if we go this way, is that members (and others)
subscribe to LLC, and a percentage of all income from LLC goes to the
umbrella organization, and from there to the constituent organizations, in
proportion to their membership numbers. The flow, in other words, is in
the other direction (from publisher to society, not from society to
publisher). The difference is significant.
>3. The handling of ACH membership is therefore handed over to the LLC. The
>"profit" that comes from subscriptions that come in through the ACH would
>go into ACH accounts. (I don't know what we would do about Library
>subscriptions that don't come through membership fees - Any ideas?)
One of the important things about this new arrangement is that library
subscriptions help to increase the income of the societies, which they
don't do under CHUM. My proposal, in the earlier email, was that the
library subscriptions should go into a pool controlled by the umbrella
organization, part of which would be used to pay for the ejournal, the rest
of which would be disbursed for special projects, or else (again) in
proportion to individual membership of constituent societies.
>4. With the financial support from LLC and membership fees the ACH would
>set up, on behalf of the whole, an electronic journal. (We could start a
>new one or contract with an existing outfit to create one to our
>specifications.)
I would say that the support would come solely from the umbrella
organization's institutional-subscriber income, not from ACH (or ALLC, or
anyone else's) individual member-subscriber income. The ejournal should
serve the affiliated group of organizations, too, not just one of them
(e.g., not just the ACH).
>5. Humanist would continue as is, as would the CHWP.
Sure.
>6. We would set up a common news engine for all 5 organizations that would
>handle e-mail newsletters, announcement lists, and so on. This would be
>developed so that announcements going out as part of Ninch-Announce would
>be identified as Ninch-Announce even if coming from a common news
>database. The allied organizations would prepare an RFP and see if there
>is an organization among us willing to run this for us. We should be
>prepared to all fund this to a limited extent.
A common newsletter is a good idea, and NINCH would be a great publisher,
also for RFPs etc.. Some income from the umbrella organization ought to go
to fund that activity, if it's agreed upon.
>7. Likewise we pool our WWW sites into one WWW site with a mirror on a
>different continent (or two.) We pool the funds we have for administering
>our WWW sites and find a unit willing to run the respective sites for us.
>One goal for this would be building a long-term archive for ACH/ALLC
>conference abstracts.
Sure--on the same principle as the newsletter. And perhaps NINCH would
want to be the north american site for this consolidated web presence.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Oct 20 2002 - 21:56:33 EDT