X-no-Archive:yes
O.K....  just *one* more email before I get out of here:

Bill started it:

> .... I believe that the agenda for IPROF '99 is set so there may not
> be much opportunity to do more than have additional hardcopy
> information available for 99.

Have to ask the IPROF '99 Conference Task Force (I'm not on it
this year (and am pretty much fully occupied being SIGIMAGE
Chair) ).  On this year's task force (here's your answer, Nick):

Leah Robertson,  Tony Furnivall,  Leslie Virgilio,  John Alleyn-Day,
Chandler Briggs, Mariann Tymn (HP)

> What kind of participation would you like to see the High
> Availability Forum have at IPROF??

Seems like some kind of HAF session would be a good fit for
IPROF;  I'll leave it to the HAFEC to figure out best method..   ;-)

> Are you interested in seeing technical high availability
> presentations from HP?

From just our site's perspective, there's basically only one HA-
related thing I would like to hear from HP (start broken record
again):  Mirror the <long_name>....  And I already know the
current answer:  "Not Planned" (repeated by Winston Prather
as recently as the Seattle CSY traveling road show on 16 Nov).
so there we are...

> Are you interested in seeing technical high availability
> presentations from third-parties?

Not personally, but I can see where other attendees might be
interested.

> In a more generic sense, would you like to see IPROF stay
> exactly as is or would you like to see its charter expanded
> somewhat?

"Expanded somewhat" might be O.K...  but basic theme seems
to be a winner....  What needs to be expanded is the number of
face-time hours at IPROF....

> Would you be more likely to attend IPROF if it were expanded?

Nope.  Going in any case.....     :-)

> Would you be less likely to attend HP World if IPROF were
> expanded?

Maybe;  at some point;  definitely yes, if I ever have to pay the
full-freight registration at HP World out of my own pocket (not
likely).

> How would you feel about a vendor show at IPROF?

Consensus on this one should be clear by now:  NO.. or maybe
I should say:  no:  I do not mean to exclude vendor hospitality
suites that are not part of the official program, *AS  LONG AS*
they are discrete (previous instances of this worked out O.K.,
AFAIK).... and I agree with Denys on this one:  a table where a
vendor in attendance could put out some product sheets would
be O.K....  but NO BOOTHS, ala HP World !!!!


Wirt jumped in:

> As long as you're asking, I would very much like to see IPROF
> return to its roots, a very small attendance of 100-200 people,
> limited by nothing more than first-come, first-served rules, held
> at HP, with very small registration fees, $50 or less.

> ... if the registration expense for a meeting is much over $25/day,
> I won't go.

and pointed to an excellent example:

>       http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/calpeg/fees.html
> and the general nature of the talks at:
>      http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/calpeg/schedule.html

I believe this type of high-quality conference run by volunteers
is not at all unique in a number of scientific disciplines.  I will
add (without taking time to back up my numbers tonight) that I
believe an "IPROF-type" conference could probably be put on by
volunteers at a decent hotel for <= $50 per day, *including* a
good catered lunch.  To do that you would have to:

1.  Advertise just on the net;  no mailings (expensive).
2.  Do the agenda on the net (like Wirt's above examples).
3.  No reimbursement for SIG leaders other than comp reg.
     That is already in effect for IPROF-99 (previously, SIG
      leader expenses were a major cost).
4.  Minimal if any involvement by professional paid staff.  Some
     participating corporate entity would have to volunteer to
     handle the money and sign a contract for the meeting space
     (as long as you rent a reasonable number of rooms, meeting
     space can be fairly inexpensive (I did not say "free") ).

** BUT **.:  Is it worth the risk (there is some) and could we get
the required volunteer effort (substantial (trust me;  been there;
done IPROF for six years (eight if you count Reno '90 & '91) ) )
to drop the reg cost from $395 down to <= $150 for a three-day
conference ?? (I would go for a four-day conference if something
like this was attempted).

So before launching any idea of trying to "volunteerize" IPROF,
how many people might attend if the registration was $150, but
will not attend for $395 ??...  and would you be willing to put
up with what might be a "rougher around the edges" conference
to save that ~ $250 in registration ??

SIDEBAR:  In blue-skying the above I want to make it clear that
I am not in any way meaning to disparage the valuable work
Interex professional staffers have done over the last six years to
put on IPROF.  Because I was volunteer IPROF Chair and on
IPROF committees for several years, I am pretty familiar with
how much work it takes to put on a smoothly running conference.
But I think the pervasive advent of the Internet has made an all-
volunteer conference of this size a lot more doable; *IF* there
are enough volunteers willing to put in the required effort....


Wirt continued:

> Is that really true that HP doesn't want IPROF on its campus?

Jeff Vance was good enough to provide the HP perspective.  The
way Jeff stated it is the way I understand it too, at last take.  If
IPROF was guaranteed to "fit" at the HP facility, it might be worth
talking to CSY about it some more....  although:  after Jeff said:

> I personally prefer it to be in CSY and I see advantages ....

Stan mentioned the obvious question that I should have thought
of from last time I was down there and saw the construction:

> What about the new hotel "across the street" from HP?  ...
> Does it have conference facilities?

Don't recall, but somebody should check (Interex may have already
done so);  although expect we are locked in to the Radisson for this
year;  expect contract has already been signed...  and remember
the Marriott Courtyard (also across the road from HP) has a small
meeting room, probably suitable for smaller SIG meetings.


Glenn had a thought:

> Another suggestion is for the meeting to be only of SIG leaders
> (and perhaps select invitees, with a strict limit) and HP.

Sorry, I respectfully but quite strongly disagree:  SIG leaders are
important, but "users" = IPROF....  and having someone (anyone)
arbitrarily "select" who gets to go is even less palatable.  If the
number of attendees needs to be limited, first-come-first-served
is pretty much the only egalitarian and fair way to do it, IMO....

Ken Sletten