Deloy Cole wrote:

<---snip--->

We are listening.  However, we do feel like this session is an
opportunity for HP to
respond to the issues that have been raised on the annual Advocacy
Survey that is
voted on by nearly 1000 Interex and other national user group members.
For HP
World '98 the session has been described as:

"This roundtable is the ideal venue for you to get high-level answers to
your
questions and hear the latest results from Interex's Worldwide Advocacy
Survey of
HP Computer Users. As an open forum designed to create direct dialogue
between
top HP managers, their customers, and prospective customers, you will be
able to
share your concerns regarding your relationship with HP and the future
of your
computing systems."

The format of the HP Management Roundtable will be similar to last year
in that
we will be presenting a few issues from the survey and letting HP
respond before we
get into the pre-submitted questions and then onto the open forum.
However, the
amount of panelists is lower and they will be on stage for the entire
session.  This is
the 3rd year in a row that we have had HP respond to some issues from
the survey.
Also, the length of time for HP to respond to the survey issues has been
decreased.

<---snip--->

To which I respond:

Last year was a lot more than "presenting a few issues from the survey
and letting HP respond before we get into the pre-submitted questions
...". But even if that is all that is done this year, I would still
maintain that using the face time of the MR to go over advocacy survey
results is not the best use of that valuable time. Instead, may I
suggest Interex prepare an article for HPWorld magazine prior to the
conference which describes the survey results and HP's response.
Distribute this at the conference. If anyone, including HP, wants to
follow up on any of the survey issues, the MR then becomes the
appropriate forum.

I realize that a principle reason for moving discussion of the Advocacy
Survey results to the MR was the distinct lack of interest shown when
separate sessions were held on the Advocacy Survey - the couple I went
to in past years could have been held in a broom closet. Interex and HP
need to understand that this was a conscious decision on the part of the
attendees; that perhaps they felt their time could be better spent at
sessions or in the vendor area getting information that might not be
readily available later on in print. I know that is how I schedule my
time. It does not mean I am not interested in the Advocacy Survey
results and HP's response; I just believe there is a better time and
place to review them.

John Burke
e-mail: [log in to unmask]