Ok, this touches a nerve.

(putting flame suit on)

Traditionally, Interex has been (and still is as far as I can tell) a
non-profit professional organization with the purpose of making the desires
of the HP 3000 community (and HP 9000, NT, and once upon a time HP 2000 and
HP 1000 communities) known to HP.  It is an advocacy roll.

Some professional organizations are vendor-specific, like Interex, and
others are industry-wide in scope (like the ACM and IEEE for example).  One
thing that (in my experience) all the vendor-specific professional
organizations have in common is their advocacy roll.  They establish a
close relationship with the vendor and act as the voice of their membership.

While such organizations often have a wide user base (very large companies
with dozens or hundreds of high-end processors, to small companies with a
single, bottom-of-the-line processor), they exist in part to make the voice
of the small shop heard, and not drowned out by the clamboring of the very
large shops, many of which have their own one-on-one meetings with the
vendor.  This is possible because a multitude small shops gain a larger
voice through their membership in the organization.

But it takes money for the vendor-specific professional organization to
fulfill its advocacy roll.  The membership dues go to fund many things.
Some of that money goes to fronting meetings (like IPROF) where there is a
direct exchange of ideas and information with HP engineers and managers,
some goes towards an annual conference (HPWORLD), some goes to supporting
regional users groups (the RUGs, BWRUG in my area), the monthly
publications, the contributed software library and its maintenance, the
SIGs (Special Interest Groups), and even the surveys and ballots -- like
the SIB.

Years ago I was an Interex volunteer (I'm not at present).  Tony remembers,
as we worked together as Interex volunteers for a number of years.  Back
then Interex had a "System Improvement Committee" (SIC) and it put out a
SIC ballot.  Putting out a ballot is not a cheap thing to do.  It costs
money.  That money comes from Interex and member dues.  There is also a lot
of labor involved in creating the ballot.  I'm very familiar with how the
SIC ballot was created, and somewhat familiar with how the SIB is created,
so I appologize if I have information about the SIB incorrect.

In the days of the SIC, it took months of effort to create the ballot.
Requests for ballot items were received and collected.  The first step was
to call the author of the request and verify the request.  Often it was
found that the request needed minor re-wording, and the re-wording of the
request was done over the phone.

The "cleaned up" request was then ready for further processing.  The
requests were then read for content, looking specifically for duplicate or
near duplicate requests.  This sometimes required additional calls to the
authors to either broaden the scope of their request, or limit the scope.

When the data collection was complete, the SIC would meet and over two very
long days, would review the requests, resolve any scope questions, and
discuss the requests with HP engineers and managers.  This gave HP a "heads
up" on what issues/requests the users had brought up, and also gave HP a
chance to do two things:  1) evaluate the requests for feasability, amount
of effort, length of effort, staff availability, product integration
testing, total cost, and many other factors, and 2) compare the preliminary
SIC ballot with what they internally believed to be the "hot" items.

When the SIC and composed the ballot, it was then sent to the Interex
offices for production.  Production involved getting the ballot printed,
getting the ballots stuffed in large envelopes, getting the envelopes
mailed to the membership, and finally, receiving and tallying the results.
Printing, stuffing, mailing, and tallying the ballots costs a considerable
amount.  It is not cheap.  The annual SIC meeting, the phone calls to the
request authors, and all the other administrative costs also added up.
Were it not for volunteers and the hours they donate to Interex, the ballot
would not be financially feasable.

An example of what a committee member does.

One year I was the committee member who was tasked with combining and
consolidating enhancements/requests HP had dumped from its STARS database.
Others on the SIC were tasked with researching requests which had been
submitted to the Interex office.

There were over 800 requests on the floppy disc I received.  For the first
couple of weeks it seemed like it was going to be an endless task, reading
the requests, trying to find similar requests, grouping the similar
requests together, finding duplicate requests (the same technical feature
desired, but written by a different author and stated differently),
counting the duplicates and assigning weights to them (as in there were 9?
13? 19? 29? requests for adding an the "RUN" command to the COMMAND
intrinsic), and coming up with an analysis for the SIC to review.  I spent
hours on it every day for a number of weeks, after all, there are
publication deadlines, and to reduce costs the materials have to be ready
in certain time intervals.

I also made many, many long distance calls.  Almost all of those calls I
paid for out of my own pocket so the cost to Interex shown on its ledger
doesn't truely reflect the cost of that ballot.  This is fairly typical.
Volunteers provide a very significant service to Interex and the whole HP
community.  They have my sincere appreciation for their efforts, and my
understanding and sympathy for the family time and activities they give up
and time from work they miss while providing servies to the HP community.

It is my understanding that today requests are first processed by the SIGs.
 Each of the SIGs then come up with the top requests for their SIG, and
forward their portion of the ballot to whatever has replaced the SIC.  The
completed SIB is then printed, stuffed in envelopes, mailed to the
membership, and the votes tallied by the Interex staff.  It still costs
money, and since not all Interex members have email and/or web access, the
ballot is still mailed out to the membership, and still tallied at the
Interex office (Tony, if I have this process wrong, please correct me).

So, in my opinion, in consideration of the efforts Interex devotes to the
production of the SIB, both financially and through its volunteers, I think
it is fair to say that voting on the SIB ballot is, and should continue to
be, a privilege of Interex membership.

John  (putting flame suit on)

PS:  In the past a lot of the requests for ballot items came from IPROF
submissions or (what is now) HPWORLD submissions.  I'm not sure if that is
still the case, perhaps Tony or some SIG leaders could enlighten me.

At 5/12/99 08:54 AM , John Dunlop wrote:
>Tony , you wrote:
>[snip]
>> This is a very imperfect analogy, but please bear with it.
>> Let's assume that you are a stockholder in a company that pays an annual
>> dividend to its stockholders. Let's assume also, that the company is in the
>> business of trying to, make life better for a whole load of people, some of
>> whome are stockholders, and most of whom are not. Somehow this company
>> makes enough money to distribute the dividend I talked about earlier.
>>
>> How would you feel if all of a sudden people began to say that the dividend
>> should now be offered to everyone regardless. Doesn't that pretty well
>> destroy the value of your investment?
>
>Sorry, you have lost me here. Yes, a very imperfect analogy.
>The HP3000 User Community is just that and Interex has no monopoly on
>who uses HP3000s.
>However, the SIB is a ballot for the improvement of the HP3000 for all
>HP3000 users, not just those who "join the club".
>
>> Interex develops mechanisms to help improve the lot of the entire HP
>> community (especially the HP3000 community, but that is largely due to the
>> historical nature of the Interex/HP relationship). Along the way it offers
>> special benefits to membership. AMong these is the right to vote on the
>> System Improvement Ballot. This right is reserved only to members. Anyone
>> can participate in SIG discussions and SIG surveys and many of the other
>> opportunities for discourse. But the right to vote is reserved exclusively
>> tio Interex members.
>
>This is just my point. This "privilege" to vote on the SIB shouldn't be
>just limited to Interex members.
>
>> If someone values that right, the way to acquire it is simple. People who
>> choose NOT to acquire that right have made a (presumptively) valid judgment
>> on the value of such a right. What you are proposing is tantamount to
>> having your neighbours cake and eating it too! Such behavior leads to tooth
>> decay - and worse (;-)
>
>Really, Tony. You are taking things rather too far. All I am asking is
>that all HP3000 users and not just the "Interex Club" get to have a vote
>on the improvement of the HP3000. Why should it be an elitist vote?
>
>> I have been a vocal defender of the concept that survey participation
>> should be as wide open as possible, to get the best possible debate; but
>> that voting should be reserved to those who choose to earn the right, by
>> becoming members.
>
>Um, that seems rather a contradiction.
>
>I have been a member of Interex for many years and I also participated
>in the first SIB for MPE and even typed up the technical issues on the
>Interex HP150! So I am aware of both sides of the question but I still
>would like to see a wider input to the SIB.
>
>'nuff said.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John Dunlop
>
>E-mail : [log in to unmask]
>Web : http://www.hp3000links.com
>"All your HP3000 resources on the Net"
>Mirror: http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~jdunlop


--------------------------------------------------------------
John Korb                            email: [log in to unmask]
Innovative Software Solutions, Inc.

The thoughts, comments, and opinions expressed herein are mine
and do not reflect those of my employer(s), or anyone else.