At 08:52 PM 6/22/99 -0400, Joe Geiser wrote:
>Interex:  Someone (Deloy, Leah, Chuck - someone) in there usually chimes in
>when something controversial is mentioned here.   Is this true?  Some
>clarification from Sunnyvale would be helpful.

Oh,oh,oh. I REALLY didn't want to be the first to do this, but if no one
else will....

As I understand it (which is probably far from the case), one of the
strategic opportunbities for Interex is to take their core strengths
(conferences, etc) and begin to apply them to a wider base. If I understand
the concept, this would not dilute the HP (let alone HP3000) base, but
would enable Interex (the organization) to be not exclusively HP based. Or
maybe Interex would remain HP based, and some other group would become a
parent. As I said, so far as I understand - it's only a possibility, but
there are some legal manouvres that have to happen along the way.

I haven't even received my copy of the ballot yet, so I can't be more
specific as to details. However, I can say the following:

The future of Interex is a topic that needs a lot of careful thought at the
moment. Despite the resurgence of interest in the HP3000, and a consequent
increase (believe it or not) in the percentage of time devoted to
MPE/HP3000 at HPWorld, despite all this, the future of an organization that
is devoted to the digital equivalent of electric motors (the Joel Birnbaum
analogy from 1988) is not exactly hopeful. Someone much wiser than I has
put it very succinctly:

What is the future of a vendor specific users group in world of  Open Systems?

Interex has two or core competencies, and several other important "lines of
business". The core competencies are conference planning and delivery, and
advocacy. The important lines of business are publications, and membership
services. The marketplace for most platforms other than the HP3000 is too
volatile to support long-term commitment from users, and the HP3000
marketplace (where such long-term commitment survives bodily removal onto
another platform!) is fundamentally too small to survive independently.

{This last assertion is open to debate, and several fascinating
alternatives emerge from such a debate!, but I stand by my assertion}

The board and the staff have undoubtedly been thinking of this, and I don't
think it's unreasonable to think that they have some possible plans in
mind. As I said, I know that several options include some pretty drastic
restructuring FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. I don't know that it would change
things that much for the person in the computer room. (After all, when
Daimler took over Chrysler, the only visible difference to me was a longer
name on the recall notices ;-)

So, I think that Steve and Stan are right to raise the level of interest
about this, and that if there is no accompanying explanation for the ballot
request, they will be joined by me (FWIW!) to have such an explanation made
available. But I do truly believe that it is probably a move for the
better. The point being, of course, that such a radical looking move needs
much debate and explication before a vote. I hope that this will indeed be
the case - and I may even be able to cast an intelligent ballot!

Thanks for your patience in listening to me,

TOny Furnivall

MPE Forum