At 02:46 PM 11/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>While I understand the time pressures and frustrations associated with the
>IPROF of the last few years (basically too much in too little time), how
>does splitting things up into two conferences covering an 8 day period help?
>

The reasons for the split aren't simply "too much in too little time".
Rather, the reasons center around classic IPROF trying to accomplish too
many diverse goals.  The goals of advocacy, lab contact with SIG's and
end-user education aren't easily accomplished in one setting and have
resulted in a very mixed understanding of what IPROF was intended to be, in
the beginning.

IPROF over the last few years (maybe even four or five) wasn't a
particularly satisfying experience for me personally, and for many others
with whom I have spoken.  The lack of very specific focus caused, in my
opinion, a drastic drop in attendance (40-80 last year depending on who you
listen to).  The split is intended to facilitate that focus.

By the way, the changes in IPROF weren't developed in a vacuum.  Most of
the MPE SIG leaders had a hand in the process and, if I can speak for them
for a moment, were much in favor of the separation.  They were also
instrumental in the creation of the curriculum for the Solutions Symposium.

>
>It certainly does not encourage participation, especially in the SIGs. In
>order to attend both, people coming from any distance (in addition to
>airfare and ground transportation) are staring at 9 nights in a hotel ($1500
>including taxes) plus meals and as many as 8 days out of the office. This in
>addition to the $595 for the SS and who knows how much for the "new" IPROF.
>We were already having problems getting people to IPROF, what is going to
>happen now if people feel they have to choose?
>

Many of the people with whom I have communicated have said that if they are
interested in the SIG meetings, they aren't necessarily interested in the
Solutions Symposium and vice versa, though this certainly isn't true for
everyone.

Additionally, I'm hoping we draw completely new blood to the Solutions
Symposium.  Having been one of the driving forces behind this new
conference, my overt goal, stated publically many times, is to help create
a larger middle class of HP 3000 technologists.  We have an inverse bell
curve regarding these folks. I'm constantly travelling throughout the US,
going from HP 3000 site to HP 3000 site and, while this may be different in
the rest of the world, I'm seeing a consistent theme in these sites of not
having strongly competent MPE'ers or not being able to find more of them.

>As to the content of the two events, the program for the SS at this point
>can only be described as vague. At best. The program for the "new" IPROF is
>non-existent. The quality of the SS program will be highly dependent on the
>presenters since it would appear several hours are being allocated to each
>topic. Who are the presenters? What is their background, expertise and
>commitment? It takes a lot of prep time for even a good one-hour session. I
>look at each proposed session and think this could either be very good or a
>total waste of my time. It is all dependant on who presents the topic. If
>the level of quality is roughly the same as at HPWorld sessions, then the SS
>is in trouble. The quality of IPROF has been highly dependent on the
>participation of HP engineers and the resultant dialogue. What is HP's
>commitment to these two events?
>

The design of the content isn't at all vague, though the communication
about it has been.  We are in the process of aligning specific speakers for
specific presentations.  It's taken longer than I expected to arrange for
the speakers but we have commitments from about 75 percent of the ones
we've asked.  We will be posting a letter to the list in the next few
working days asking for volunteers for the remaining topics.

The current speaker list (from memory, so I'll probably miss a few) is:

  Jeff Vance (HP)
  Walt McCullough (HP)
  Mark Bixby (HP)
  Joe Geiser
  Mark Klein
  Joe Grimm
  Birket Foster (and/or associates)
  Bill Lancaster (that's me :-)
  Jeff Bandle (HP)
  Mike Yawn (HP)
  Duane Percox
  Mike Dovano (HP)
  Alvina Nishimoto (HP)
  OnOn Hong (HP)
  Lee Courtney

as well as keynotes or updates by:

  Winston Prather
  Christine Martino
  Dave Snow

As you can tell, we have assembled a strong team, each person a leader in
the 3000 community in the areas in which they will speak.  We are in
discussions with several others and expect to have a complete list within a
week or so.

As you can tell by the speaker list, HP has made a strong commitment to
provide  support to the Solutions Symposium.  They are also providing some
financial support as well.

>I attended part of the discussions over the last two years on the future of
>IPROF, but the current plan does not coincide with anything I remember. The
>concept behind the SS is fine. I just don't see why it could not be made
>part of HPWorld instead of draining resources from IPROF and, in the
>process, possibly dooming both to failure.
>

I don't know what to say about this except that the design evolved over
time, with lots of SIG involvement.  Try to not miss the meetings.  :-)

As far as this being part of HP World, I personally don't think that makes
much sense.  HP World is increasingly attended by managers and while the
technical content is often good, it's also often very vendor-oriented.
What we've tried to do with the Solutions Symposium is to create a
tremendous amount of very meaty training and education not currently done,
in toto, anywhere else.

>Conspiracy theorists will probably conjecture that the SS is Interex's way
>of gaining control over the renegades who founded and have been the driving
>force behind IPROF. Just a thought. ;-)
>

Though probably said in jest (knowing John) I've grown very weary of
accusations of conspiracy.  There is no hidden agenda to the Solutions
Symposium.  It is intended to be exactly what we've been saying for months
now.  There aren't any power struggles or people trying to exert undue
influence over others.  The "renegades" are, for the most part, friends of
mine and people for whom I have the highest respect.  Frankly, if anyone
else wants to step in and do this, I'd more than welcome having them as
part of the team.  As part of this whole process, we've taken the MPE Forum
(which I currently chair) and expanded the makeup of the Executive
Committee to include most of the key MPE SIG leaders.  While we don't
always agree, we work fairly well together, attempting to build acceptable
consensus.

I think it was Napoleon who said "Never ascribe to conspiracy what should
be attributed to incompetence".  If I can rewrite him a bit I would say
"Never ascribe to conspiracy what should be attributed to busy schedules of
volunteer leaders who are still mostly focused on making a buck in a
hectic, opportunity-heavy market."

Bill Lancaster
Chairman, MPE Forum
Chairman, IPROF-2000 Task Force