Re:

Jerry wrote:

> EXACTLY!  Stan is one individual out of a larger group of HP users
> (MPE and non-MPE).  But the assumption that Interex is not trying to
> do as it's membership expects/desires is incorrect.

(Hmmm...I remember several unpleasant/unhappy meetings between the
users and the board of directors last year ... meetings that might
tend to argue against that :)

> conference committee, I can attest that indeed member/attendee feedback

I can attest that Jerry, and Denys before him, have done a good job
of trying to work with users in putting together the HP WORLD
conference technical tracks!


> potential speakers.  Overwhelming feedback from those who provide it
> has been to have an entertaining opening speaker and not still more HP

...already well commented on by others.

 or industry/technical speakers.  Even attendance at these events is
> clearly higher than any of the other conference speakers.  The

Is there anything else to do at that time? :)

> Stan's list of possible reasons for spending $20K for a speaker is
> fairly short-sighted, in that it clearly included only those possible
> reasons so support the opinion of the cost being too high.  It did
> not include *the* most important reason which he later admonishes
> Interex for ignoring.  Which is the fact that the clear majority of
> attendee feedback was for a 'recognized entertainer' to speak!  Given

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...you should know me better.  I clearly covered
the above with:

   2) you think it will increase the value of the conference for
      the attendees *by an appropriate amount*.  (I.e., add enough
      value to justify the cost.)

I thought carefully about the possible reasons for spending
that much on a speaker, trying to be fair!

> In terms of an ego-trip, has anyone looked into where this speaker is
> positioned/highlighted in the conference packet?  I don't find his
> picture on the cover, inside cover or back cover.  Its not highlighted

Not that it matters too much, but it was easily spotted on
http://www.interex.org/conference/hpworld2000/hpwprg01.html

> was clearly a small minority.  If indeed the majority shared Stan's
...

Of course, we've diluted/expanded the membership over the years,
so it's hard to get a majority of the members to even *vote*, much less
agree on something :)

> So.... if you don't like what you see, provide feedback and work
> with folks to get things changed.

> However, don't start attacking
> those that are trying to meet the needs of the majority simply because

Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, but I'll ignore the possibility
that Jerry isn't referring to me and say:

   What the hell are you saying?

   Are statements of facts attacks?

   I reviewed my original post, which had three points:

      > Why in the hell is Interex spending our money this way?

   Not an attack.  confrontational, yes.  Attack, no.

      > Who's having a power-trip ("I/we must be important, we've got
        a big name speaker)?

   Oops.  Attack.   Sorry.

   Note that in my reply to Greg's post, I changed it from an attack
   to simply being one of the set of possible (not necessarily probable)
   reasons.  (An apparently complete set of possible reasons, since no one
   has added others yet)

      > Does Interex *really* think that hundreds of extra *paying* attendees
      > will show up because of him?

   Not an attack, I think .. but a legitimate question.

   Questions aren't attacks ... they're the basis of a democracy.

> At 07:20 PM 8/16/00 -0700, Stan Sieler wrote:
>
> >    - overly loud music in the "mixers"/"parties", preventing
> >      conversation (which is, after all, one of the primary
> >      reasons for going to a conference: to *talk*);
>
> Additional forum's have been added to help facilitate the interaction

Jerry...the comment was about loud music/voice/noise/etc ... and
you skipped addressing it.  Over a YEAR before this conference, I
suggested ... politely ... that the vendor show contract rule out
amplification of sound.  Every user I asked (about two dozen) thought
this was a good idea.  Chuck Piercey and some other Interex person
(one of the Kathys?) said "we can't do anything about it", and never
replied again on the subject.  (And, I saw several other attendees
complain about the problem to Interex staff over the last two years.)

> didn't fit his need).  The one mixer/party put on by Interex is for
> just that, a party.

And you need ear-damaging sound levels because.... .... ....

ok...I give up...why *do* you need that level of sound?  Certainly
not to provide a party atmosphere!  Certainly not to entertain us.

> So yes, it'll probably not be an ideal place
> to carry on extended conversations,

How about "*any* conversations" :)

> >    - people smoking in the no-smoking vendor area during setup;
> >      (hey: the universe sometimes works well: one of the
> >      worst offenders was the late Hardwarehouse :)
>
> Yes, I can't agree more, for I too, steer away from smoking! In
> fact I can remember doing booth setup and folks smoking in the
> vendor area when it was against local law/etc.  It turns out that
> in some cases it was the union workers.

I remember having to badger a particular conference chair into
announcing "no smoking" ... but the point is that the individual
vendor/attendee shouldn't have to be enforcing this ... nor should
they have to make repeated requests.

It's not just dislike of breathing smoke...I saw cigar & cigarette
butts on flammable materials.  I didn't want to see a fire, nor
did I want to see ashes/particles getting into equipment.

> I certainly wanted to
> complain to the steward, but on the other hand, I wanted to get
> the booth setup, signs hung, etc. without paying them triple-time
> for working past midnight and having to sit around and wait...

...Jerry, trust me...you don't want to open that can of worms
(aka "Greyhound Exhibition Services").  (I'm not familiar with
"Champion Exhibition Services".)

> >    - loud music/speakers/etc (amplified sound) coming from
> >      some vendor's booths at the vendor show.
>
> A loud "YES"!  I've been in our booth and listened to speakers
> pointed at us from an adjacent booth play the same song for 3 days
> and thought I'd go nuts!  There is a clause in the contract to this
> extent and the staff does respond to the complaints.

Jerry, I *know* of complaints that were made during some previous
vendor shows to extremely highly placed Interex employees ...
complaints that were not resolved.

> >Does Interex care about those things?  Not in the least.
>
> Nope, simply not true.

Sorry...already covered above.  They seem to care to the opposite degree:
they seem to try to avoid anything that makes a big vendor unhappy,
because that's their business now: holding conferences that vendors
pay BIG bucks to exhibit.  They don't want to tell the large
vendors "no amplification" because they know that will annoy them.
That it would help all vendors, and all users, is apparently not a concern.

Sorry Jerry...if you want to claim they care, then you have to show it
because the evidence seems to point the other way.

BTW, I'm not trying to say that every individual associated
with Interex doesn't care (you care, for example).  But when you
take Chuck P., the board as a whole, and some of the people responsible
for conferences ... and then you take their actions, the only
conclusion is that "Interex doesn't care".

> The simple fact of the matter is these
> things are extremely hard to control by a few individuals over
> the wide range of vendors.  Some indeed will respond and not be
> a problem again, others are repeat offenders no matter how often
> they are told.  About the 3rd day it weighs on everyone's patience
> to continue to deal with the same problems coming from the same

And I bet they'd be shut down on the fourth day!
Wait...there is no fourth day.  Oh well.     :)

> vendors.  I personally would like to see Interex exercise the
> clause in the contract and close-down a vendor for continual
> repeated offenses!  Perhaps an example will straighten-out
> the others!

I want what I've been suggesting for a year or two: a clause saying
"no amplication" and/or "no sound louder than an ordinary conversation
should be heard from the outside of the booth area".

> I, for one, appreciate seeing the feedback and varying opinions.

And this is how you show it?

> However, I do take exception to the remarks like 'not responding',

I take exception to Interex not responding.

> 'ego-trip', 'wasteful spending', etc. being used to label the
> efforts of those of us involved in the process by individuals
> who did not get their way.

I guess that's where we have to agree to differ...because
I take exception at the *actions*, not the labels.

Keep in mind...I didn't say "it is wasteful".  I essentially
said "if it can't be justified, it's wasteful" ... which, of course,
implicitly asks: please justify it.

I stand by that: if you can't justify the spending, then there aren't
many reasons left for doing it.  One reason is waste, another is ego-boo.
I'm open to hearing others!

This isn't a black and white question...
but it sure doesn't doesn't require 16-bit color, either!

I.e., the possible reasons are easily enumerated ... I did that.
I didn't assign *probabilities* to them.

> They are throwing unfounded
> accusations at everyone involved without considering that they
> themselves do not necessary have all the data.

"unfounded accusations", like the biggest one: "they are throwing
unfounded accusations at everyone..."?

> It is both
> discourteous and unprofessional to those of us who have been
> willing to commit ourselves to serve the user community at large.

True...so, please re-read your post, and you'll see that the above
paragraph applies to you.





Stan Sieler                                           [log in to unmask]
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html          www.allegro.com/sieler