At 02:02 AM 8/17/00 -0600, Jeff Woods wrote:
>Interex ought to do so what it's membership
>expects it to do.  And somehow I think Stan still counts as one of
>those.


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.  As a member of the
conference committee, I can attest that indeed member/attendee feedback
was an integral part of developing the program, including looking at
potential speakers.  Overwhelming feedback from those who provide it
has been to have an entertaining opening speaker and not still more HP
or industry/technical speakers.  Even attendance at these events is
clearly higher than any of the other conference speakers.  The
majority of the suggestions for speakers has been for humorists,
including folks like Robin Williams, Jay Leno, even Scott Adams again.
If you think the cost for Mr. Franken is high, perhaps you can
appreciate why these others never made it close to the short list.
This also assumes that the potential speaker is willing/available,
which many times narrows your candidates still further.

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
this, the committee looked at all the options and data it had to
arrive at its recommendation to the conference staff.  (And sure, the
terms 'recognized' and 'entertainer' are subjective and can be
debated....)

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
as one of the goals of the conference,  Its first mention is a
small block in the week-at-a-glance overview (pg 2) and then outlined
on the bottom of page 22, following all the HP speakers.  The full
introduction of the event doesn't occur until pg 29! So I'm not sure,
but this doesn't seem like an effort to use this to attract attendees.

I do, however, take exception to those who indicate that the conference
staff and committee are not listening/responding to the members and
attendees.  Indeed we are because the majority of the feedback we reviewed
indicated that this type of program is what the respondents wanted.
Certainly not everyone felt this way, but those with feedback otherwise
was clearly a small minority.  If indeed the majority shared Stan's
opinion and provided that feedback, including suggestions as to what
they would want to see I'm confident that the committee and staff would
move in that direction.  The conference must respond to what attracts/meets
the needs of their customers.  And if it doesn't, they simply will go/spend
their training/vendor advertising funds elsewhere.

Its indeed quite a challenge to develop a program.  It is literally
impossible to please everyone and there will always be those that will
arm-chair quarterback the results of the committees' effort.  Having
lead innumerous local conferences and helped at this level I've
gotten lots of feedback about what people like and don't like about
our efforts.  Yet on the other hand, when I've asked these folks if
they would be willing to try their hand at organizing something like
this they quickly decline. Almost always their response has been that
they would not want the job because of people like themselves.

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
your views/feedback is not being carried out.  It may be simply that
your views are a minority and indeed the people are doing 'exactly'
what you are chastising them for not doing!

For example, there have been changes, and attempts at changing to
most every thing Stan outlined:

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
among the attendees, such as the 'meet the architects' session last
year (although Stan see's these people on a regular basis so probably
didn't fit his need).  The one mixer/party put on by Interex is for
just that, a party.  So yes, it'll probably not be an ideal place
to carry on extended conversations, but there certainly are plenty
of other opportunities.  The other events that occur and are sponsored
by others are not controlled by the conference committee.


>    - 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 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...

The conference staff running the vendor floor indeed does not
tolerate this and does ask the offender not to smoke.  This is
obviously not always affective and will probably continue to be
a problem.  Some just think that because their paid for that space
they can do as they please.  Personally I'd like to see a law
enforcement person hand out contribution forms for the local
library fund to these individuals... :)


>    - 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.  Then an hour
or so later the volume is back-up.  The same holds true for vendors
that have mics and give presentations, using the volume to try and
attract attendees from across the hall to their pitch!  Its an
ongoing battle on the floor, and just because one happens to go by
when the noise level is up doesn't mean the staff isn't responding
to the complaints it receives.


>Does Interex care about those things?  Not in the least.

Nope, simply not true.  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
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, for one, appreciate seeing the feedback and varying opinions.
It is helpful in terms of our efforts as users on the committee
in working with the Interex staff to receive constructive
feedback and ideas so we can indeed look at changes to the
content/format/etc..

However, I do take exception to the remarks like '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.  They are throwing unfounded
accusations at everyone involved without considering that they
themselves do not necessary have all the data.  It is both
discourteous and unprofessional to those of us who have been
willing to commit ourselves to serve the user community at large.

I'm sorry Stan will not be at the show...I was so looking forward
to beating him again this year at SIGMagic... ;-)