Tony

        I must take exception that a request for improvements only come from
those who pay to belong to an organization that says it represents the users of
that product. This is a small group that chooses to pay extra to receive
additional benefits from the membership, and I say extra because those that have
licensees have already paid an entrance fee. Also no users group can expect to
have 100% participation, so by default it cannot represent ALL users. IIRC
Interx was set up for the HP3000 users, and in the early days I believe that it
did an admirable job. When it, IMHO, ceased to perform this function then it can
not longer be seen as the mechanism of getting requests to HP. This list is
proving to be a conduit to HP with far greater effectiveness and responsiveness
that Interex ever had.

        If the questions on the SIB will determine what new things HP will focus
there limited resources toward providing, then these questions should be asked
of as many users of MPE as possible, not just the select few who have paid their
money. I believe that this information would be more valuable to HP than the
small number of responses that Interex will collect from its membership.

        BTW, I dropped my membership after 15 years because I felt that Interex
was no longer meeting my needs. And as John Dunlop stated, I too was part of the
first SIB.

Bob Schlosser
Harris Corporation
Melbourne, FL.
(407) 727-5893

-----Original Message-----
From:   Tony Furnivall [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Wednesday, May 12, 1999 9:42 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: MPE SIB now available on the web

At 11:41 AM 5/12/99 +0100, John wrote:
>I visited the page but noticed the phrase (in Red) :
>
>"You must have either a "Value" or "Site Software & Training" membership
>package
>in order to participate in the survey."
>
>It seems a shame that the ballot only includes Interex members.
>Shouldn't it be opened up to the entire HP3000 user community whether
>members of Interex or not?

Oh, John, Really!

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?

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.

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 (;-)

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.

Thanks for listening as I got that off my chest!

TOny