[This note has been sent to the following InterNet address(es):
[log in to unmask]]
 
 
Jim Knight wrote :
>At 06:09 PM 10/6/95 -0700, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>Isaac writes:
>>> I find it interesting at least to this point you are only looking at the
>>> HP3000 customers for IPROF '96.  How about other HP customers, like the
>>> 9000 folks?!?  Perhaps it would be a good idea to post IPROF '96
>>> information on other HP related newsgroups and listservers.
>>>
>>> This is also critical for SIGSYSMAN, since we address issues for HP System
>>> Managers on all HP boxes.
<snip>
 
>>It would be interesting to know for SIGUNIX and SIGSYSMAN (and any other
>>SIG that covers some non-MPE stuff) what percentage of users fall into
>>each of these categories:
>>
 
>The following are for SIGNETWORKING, another one of those cross-functional SIGS
 
>>A) Users of both systems or users with an interest in both who would not
>>   feel that content unrelated to *their* system is a waste of time.
 
  >Over 75% of those that attended meetings indicated that they had both
  >platforms.
 
>>B) MPE only users with no real interest in Unix.
>>C) Unix only users with really no interest in MPE.
 
>  Of the remaining 25% there were a few more MPE users than Unix users, but
>not many.
 
>>Since there are lots of conferences for Unix users these days, and few
>>for MPE users, I'd be afraid of 'B' type users dropping out of a SIGSYSMAN
that
>>spent half the day talking about something they weren't interested in.
>>Of course you could do one day of MPE and one day of Unix, or solve the
problem
>>any number of other ways too.
>>
 
> In todays marketplace there are simply fewer and fewer HP-3000 only shops.
That
>is one reason why SIGSYSMAN has had to change it's mission. <snip>
 
The whole question about areas of relevance for a particular SIG is a continual
open
 question. IMHO, many SIGs will overlap with each other particularly with such
an all-encompassing
SIG as SIGSYSMAN. I was privileged to be the first Chairman of SIGSYSMAN and at
the time of
creation, the SIG was intentionally set up to involve as many separate
technical areas as possible
on the HP3000 under an umbrella SIG to avoid System Managers having to spread
their interest over
a multitude of other SIGs to obtain information relevant to System Managers and
also to share HP3000
specific technical information such as patches, workarounds, problems etc. This
was primarily because
I was managing a shop with in excess of 30 HP3000s which were failing daily,
for different reasons.
I found that I was receiving answers to questions, fixes and general help much
faster from other System
Managers I had met on courses etc than I was from the HP Response Center. (All
this is long ago and
is not intended as a slur on the RC).
 
Now Isaac has expanded the territory of SIGSYSMAN to include UNIX System
Managers with the result
that the SIG has become split. There are areas of common interest, mainly over
POSIX (and C?) but
generally speaking, as mentioned above, the technical details of either side
will only be of interest to those
System Managers who have both types of system while those with one or the other
will only be interested
 in a percentage of the proceedings.
 
 I tend to draw a parallel with the INTERACT magazine which was originally
HP3000 only, then included
UNIX information and now is a separate magazine. I used to skip the UNIX parts
but now it is a separate
publication, I tend to hoard them away in the belief that they may be relevant
to me in the future.
 
 I don't see a way around this unless the SIG is changed to encompass 2
mini-SIGs (MPE and UNIX) with a
 common area for the SIG in general (e.g. like sub-committees) to deal with the
system specific technical items.
 I haven't really thought this through all the way and would be interested to
hear other people's opinions.
 
Cheers,
John "A System Manager mind is an Open mind" Dunlop ([log in to unmask])I