In article <01bcbdcf$db26bc00$acdf23c7@kitana>, Cortlandt Wilson
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>Chad Gilles <[log in to unmask]> wrote in article
><[log in to unmask]>...
>>
>> I am running for the INTEREX Board of Directors.

>> Most importantly, I feel users groups (including INTEREX) should be run
>> by users, not consultants or HP. (I have nothing against HP or
>> consultants, but I feel they should not have a dominance in running an
>> indpendent users group)
>
>Chad,
>
>You seem to assume that running a user group is equivalent to 'dominance'.
> As INTEREX is dominated by 'ordinary' users rather than by consultants and
>all leadership positions are democratically elected how is such dominance
>achieved?
>
>How is 'dominance' by consultants worse that dominance by any other special
>interest group or individual with a agenda?   What evidence can you point
>to that this is a particular problem?   To the contrary, a number of the
>SIG leaders are consultants and to my knowledge they do a fine job.
>
>How do you define a 'user'?    As a consultant or contract programmer how
>am I less a HP computer user than anyone else?    If my consulting company
>owns a HP computer am I a user?   A great many INTEREX members are not the
>owners of the HP computer that they use.   What ensures that such members
>speak for the interests of the equipment owners?
>
> As a IT staff member I received a paycheck directly from my employer.   As
>a consultant I now invoice my client and legally am paid by my company.
>How does this difference in the legal method of payment for my services
>make my opinion less valuable?
>
>Gee, can SIG Consult be run by consultants?
>------------------------------------------------
>
>As a well educated, white, American male  perhaps I should thank you for
>this direct experience of raw, naked prejudice.
>
>- Cortlandt Wilson
>  Cortlandt Software
>
As someone based on the UK, I've no particular axe to grind about
Interex.

But Cortland puts his finger right on the button. *Can* SIG Consult be
run by comsultants? Of course it can. Who else could run it?

And there's the rub. Consultants have special interests, not shared by
other HP users. Else why have SIG Consult? Or why worry about it being
run by others?

So, no, Cortland, your opinion isn't *less* valuable. But it is
irrevocably coloured by where you are coming from, no matter how hard
you try. So it's at least different.

In my time with the HP3000, I've been a User (IT Manager), a Consultant,
and a Vendor. Three different hats, and three very different stances.

Yes, as a Vendor, we run an HP3000, and so we count, in some ways, as a
User. But believe me, it's nothing like running a production machine in
an *end-user* shop. The concerns are different.

I'd be worried if the HPCUA, our analogue of Interex, got tooooo close
to HP. I'd also be worried if it were dominated by Vendors and
Consultants. But I'd be especially worried if those Vendors and
Consultants had forgotten (or never knew) that they were a different
animal to End-Users.

Most particularly if they then got worried (even if only as an
illustration) about losing control of the Special Interest Group that
was representing the special interests they denied they had.

And I'm startled that INTEREX' accounts can be confidential. Over here,
in secrecy-obsessed England, these things are usually limited companies
which by law have to file public accounts.

Is there nothing in the Freedom of Information Act you can use?
--
Roy Brown               Phone : (01684) 291710     Fax : (01684) 291712
Affirm Ltd              Email : [log in to unmask]
The Great Barn, Mill St 'Have nothing on your systems that you do not
TEWKESBURY GL20 5SB (UK) know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.'