Tony Furnivall writes (somewhat passionately but for good reason because
he has given signifcant time and energy to Interex):

<snipped explanation of non-Management RTs>

>The management round-table was deliberately designed differently, to address
>the specific concerns raised by many hundreds of respondents (both Interex
>members and non-members) to the 1997 Advocacy Survey. This single piece of
>management level advocacy is one of the most valuable exercises in which
>Interex engages each year. It is much more important to HP than they might
>care to state publicly. As a result we tried to make the presentation of the
>issues and responses more in the form of a shared dialog, rather than a
>confrontational Q&A. The fact is that HP has had time, this year, to begin
>not merely to respond to the survey results, but to take specific action on
>them!

I absolutely agree that the Advocacy Survey is very important. I
dutifully fill it out every year, though I think some of the questions
are too vague to be of much use. And I am interested in the results and
HP's response. The Advocacy Group within Interex has a history of
success and all involved deserve our respect and support. My point, and
I assume Ken's, was that we attended what was billed as a Management
Roundtable; yet the first 40 minutes were consumed by the
presentation/analysis/response of the Advocacy Survey. The concept of
"truth in advertising" comes to mind. Had there been a session devoted
to the Advocacy survey, I might have even attended. Because I wanted to;
not because I was lured under false pretences.

>These round-tables are indeed an opportunity for people to interact with HP
>management, but not a place for beating dead horses. I would be delighted to
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree. But I am confused. Are you implying that all passed over
pre-submitted questions fell into the category of "beating a dead
horse"? And this is why they were passed over? I do not think I would
agree with that assessment nor would I agree that any individual (or
committee) should be making such an assessment. Edit a question for
brevity? For accuracy? For grammer? Sure. Remove confrontational
language? Again, no problem. But to determine that a question does not
deserve a public airing because someone believes it is "beating a dead
horse", I think that is presumptious.

>discuss this on-line (or off-line if you prefer) to see if there are
>specific, constructuve ways that we could improve the process for all the
>Interex membership, bearing in mind that the vast majority of the membership
>has to struggle with less reliable and exuberantly supported platforms than
>the HP3000 and MPE!

John Burke
[log in to unmask]