Last Sunday I spent about 90 minutes talking to the QUANTA committee. As you will all know I have been one of QUANTA's most vocal critics during the last 12 months. I attended the meeting at the request of QUANTA and I think it is to their credit that they are prepared to listen to criticism and take it on board.
Our discussion, in a friendly, but at times frank sphere, covered the complete range of QUANTA activities including shows, the magazine, advertising, sub-groups, the library, the help-line and finances. As a result of this discussion I am satisfied that QUANTA is eager to reform itself, and have renewed my membership. (I have not, however, renewed my advertising contract - QUANTA have still to prove their reliability in this regard.) I now know the names of the people who are likely to form the new QUANTA committee and I think it will be a capable and hard working body. Recently there has been sharp criticism of the OCT/NOV/DEC/JAN Magazine. QUANTA was as shocked by this magazine as you were. They have taken interim measures to prevent this happening again - a member of the present committee is now acting editor - but in the long term it cannot produce the magazine without copy from its members. I have attached some personal thoughts about QUANTA to this mailing, and I think all members could profitably read these and then come to the AGM in April to discuss QUANTA's future. Geoff Wicks
In recent years there has been much discussion about the viability of QUANTA and this has given rise to a myth that QUANTA is in financial crisis. On the contrary QUANTA is in good financial health and can almost certainly claim to have the greatest financial security in the QL community. Occasionally economies and other changes have to be made, but this is good housekeeping and not evidence of financial crisis. In 2003 QUANTA lived within its income. QUANTA's viability problem has more to do with how it spends its money and how well its serves its members. Fewer members are participating in QUANTA activities and even fewer are prepared to take an leading role within QUANTA. The case for winding QUANTA up is very strong, but should this happen it would have implications for the survival of the QL not just in the UK but also in the rest of the world. During 2002 QUANTA gave out 80% - 90% of its income on two activities, shows and the magazine. In both activities it failed to serve its members adequately. SHOWS: The show problem is easily stated: rapidly falling attendances; poor quality content; and a bias to shows in the South East. In 2002 QUANTA spent about 38% of its income on sponsoring shows that probably less than one sixth of its members attended. From figures in the 2002 Treasurer's report it can be estimated that QUANTA subsidised shows to the extent of £10 per attendee per show. This sum does not include the insurance costs that probably came to £5 per attendee per year. Most members are unaware just how expensive show venues are. A top location such as Portsmouth starts at £1,000. A university will ask even more. A church or village hall, where most current shows are held, can cost up to £300. Is it responsible for QUANTA to spend these sums on a show that perhaps only 20 - 30 people will attend? Increasingly in recent years shows have been concentrated in a small triangle of Byfleet, London and Hove. In five years there have been only 5 shows outside this triangle, Clevedon, Portsmouth, Portishead and Manchester (2). There have been only 2 shows North of Watford in five years. Why is this? Strangely QUANTA knows very little about the distribution of its membership. There is a general impression that membership is concentrated in the South and that there has been a fall in membership in the North. (Chicken and Egg?) I have agreed to do some demographic research for QUANTA to investigate this problem. It will involve the release of some membership details, but to keep within data protection law and guidelines I have asked for nothing more than a list of post towns and counties. One possibility to improve our presence North of Watford is the Micro Mart fare in Birmingham. They need exhibitors to fill their "retro" hall. How about a QL village next time? QUANTA may well have to impose conditions on frequency and quality of shows in the future. It recognises the status quo cannot continue, but ultimately it is the membership that determines the quality of workshops. MAGAZINE: The magazine is in serious trouble. In the last 10 issues there have been only 11 contributors and, of these, only 5 have contributed more than one item. 2 of these 5 were the editors. (I have excluded QUANTA business items from these totals.) In these 10 issues there have been only 3 reviews of new products, all written by the same person. A magazine editor has the unenviable choice of either writing the magazine himself; of extensive padding; or of plagiarism. I estimate that in 2002 the cost of the magazine took up to a half of QUANTA's income. There is a huge case for closing down the magazine, but last week a member put an alternative view to me. The QUANTA Magazine is a tatty little product in comparison with the high editorial standards of QL Today, but it has one big advantage over the latter. QUANTA has far more financial security that QL Today. None of us wishes ill of QL Today, but realistically there can be no cast iron guarantee of its long term survival. On this argument QUANTA should retain its publishing arm and develop its expertise in this area. One day this could be needed for the benefit of the whole QL community. The QUANTA committee was deeply shocked, as were many members by the OCT/NOV/DEC/JAN issue and has taken effective interim measures to ensure the short term future of the magazine. This will safeguard the next few issues, but the long term survival depends on the level of contributions. Ultimately it is the membership that determines the quality of the magazine. One suggestion for a regular spot in the magazine is the reintroduction of the help-line feature. Hardly anyone requests help nowadays, but here the traders could help us. They are regularly contacted by users with problems so they should be able to advise QUANTA about interesting topics for coverage. Subgroups could also provide this type of information. COMMUNICATION AND ATTITUDES: QUANTA has never been good at presenting itself, but there is a lot of "behind the scenes" work the members never see. All too often QUANTA appears to be a bureaucratic, over-cautious and pedantic organisation. In part this is unjustified. Many people in the QL community like the informality, perhaps even anarchy, of the QL world but do not realise QUANTA cannot allow itself this luxury. The QUANTA committee are responsible for the management and safeguarding of thousands of pounds of members' money. They have no other choice than to ensure that all their actions are legal and above board, and this can often lead to misunderstandings. A good example of this is the QUANTA AGM. Two years running QUANTA has been asked by traders to move their AGM to May, which is in breach of the constitution. Last year QUANTA acquiesced, which in my view was a serious blunder. This year they refused. QUANTA are not being legalistic, difficult or unhelpful when they refuse to break their constitution. They are being realistic. Technically all decisions taken at any meeting that is not called in accordance with an organisation's constitution, including elections, are legally invalid. No responsible committee should ever put itself in that position. Nevertheless QUANTA has much to learn about communication. All to often it does itself an injustice, by failing to keep members informed of its actions. This is in spite of having a magazine that is permanently short of copy. An example of what I mean is the financial backing of the Q60. QUANTA should have boasted far more about this. One complication is the internal communication between members of the QUANTA committee. The nature of QUANTA dictates that much decision making has to be made executively or over the telephone and ratified later. I suspect that because of this committee members are often uncertain and reluctant to firmly commit themselves on behalf of QUANTA as events develop. QUANTA needs to look at this aspect of its internal communication. It also needs to fine tune its antennae to monitor developments and feelings in the QL community. Communication is, however, a two way process. It is clear that, in turn, traders and members often fail to communicate with QUANTA. During last year's discussion on shows I often suggested people should contact QUANTA to discover, for example, their plans for the AGM or what support they could give for a project. Not once was this contact made. Or again QUANTA were surprised to hear that traders are not enthusiastic about two day shows. No one had ever told them this, but it is an important piece of information. Discussion on the ql users' group is not a substitute for direct communication with QUANTA. QUANTA CAPITAL: QUANTA has a good working capital and the discussion often arises about using this more effectively for the good of the QL community. There are two important legal points to consider. Firstly, should QUANTA be wound up, its capital, for legal reasons, would be lost to the QL community. Secondly, QUANTA's capital can only be used for the benefit of QUANTA members. QUANTA has a favourable tax status as a non-profit organisation for its own members. Activities for the benefit of non-members could lead to a loss of this status. This is no idle threat. I am a member of another organisation to whom this has happened, and as a result our subscription increased from £33 to £43 within a year. QUANTA has on occasions backed hardware projects, and would consider doing so again. It should be said, however, that these projects have led to some controversy both within and outside the QUANTA committee. For the protection of its members' money QUANTA must ensure that all such projects are covered by legal safeguards. Hardware projects are probably more suitable than software projects for QUANTA help. There are high initial capital costs in buying components and setting up production, but these costs can usually be recovered when production begins. This has proved to have been very successful in the case of the Q60. Software projects are more problematic because most of the costs are the labour costs of the software author. There is also less chance of these being recovered when the product is released. This might mean that QUANTA backed software could only be made available to QUANTA members. Would QUANTA support encourage someone to write the filters that would allow us to print from QPC (and Q60) to almost any Windows printer? QL2004: Contrary to the impression they may have given QUANTA has not neglected the issue of QL2004. They could have been more forthcoming about what was happening, but the problem was that as work progressed the situation became less rather than more clear. In explanation I should perhaps remind everyone that the original proposal for QL2004 was for a venue in either Eindhoven or Portsmouth. QL Today held a ballot, but this was inconclusive because opinion was split down the middle. More seriously for QUANTA some people argued QUANTA should not organise an event in Eindhoven as it would not be readily accessible to the majority of its members. An approach was made to the Horizon Centre but this indicated it was not possible as a venue. To complicate matters yet further some overseas members then pleaded for a venue within easy reach of Gatwick and Heathrow. In short it has been difficult to make detailed plans. However QUANTA is in favour of celebrating QL anniversaries and a 21st birthday year is also a cause for celebration. It is not giving away too many secrets to suggest that if members can be patient, they could be well rewarded in the first half of 2005.
