Tony I must take exception that a request for improvements only come from those who pay to belong to an organization that says it represents the users of that product. This is a small group that chooses to pay extra to receive additional benefits from the membership, and I say extra because those that have licensees have already paid an entrance fee. Also no users group can expect to have 100% participation, so by default it cannot represent ALL users. IIRC Interx was set up for the HP3000 users, and in the early days I believe that it did an admirable job. When it, IMHO, ceased to perform this function then it can not longer be seen as the mechanism of getting requests to HP. This list is proving to be a conduit to HP with far greater effectiveness and responsiveness that Interex ever had. If the questions on the SIB will determine what new things HP will focus there limited resources toward providing, then these questions should be asked of as many users of MPE as possible, not just the select few who have paid their money. I believe that this information would be more valuable to HP than the small number of responses that Interex will collect from its membership. BTW, I dropped my membership after 15 years because I felt that Interex was no longer meeting my needs. And as John Dunlop stated, I too was part of the first SIB. Bob Schlosser Harris Corporation Melbourne, FL. (407) 727-5893 -----Original Message----- From: Tony Furnivall [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 9:42 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: MPE SIB now available on the web At 11:41 AM 5/12/99 +0100, John wrote: >I visited the page but noticed the phrase (in Red) : > >"You must have either a "Value" or "Site Software & Training" membership >package >in order to participate in the survey." > >It seems a shame that the ballot only includes Interex members. >Shouldn't it be opened up to the entire HP3000 user community whether >members of Interex or not? Oh, John, Really! This is a very imperfect analogy, but please bear with it. Let's assume that you are a stockholder in a company that pays an annual dividend to its stockholders. Let's assume also, that the company is in the business of trying to, make life better for a whole load of people, some of whome are stockholders, and most of whom are not. Somehow this company makes enough money to distribute the dividend I talked about earlier. How would you feel if all of a sudden people began to say that the dividend should now be offered to everyone regardless. Doesn't that pretty well destroy the value of your investment? Interex develops mechanisms to help improve the lot of the entire HP community (especially the HP3000 community, but that is largely due to the historical nature of the Interex/HP relationship). Along the way it offers special benefits to membership. AMong these is the right to vote on the System Improvement Ballot. This right is reserved only to members. Anyone can participate in SIG discussions and SIG surveys and many of the other opportunities for discourse. But the right to vote is reserved exclusively tio Interex members. If someone values that right, the way to acquire it is simple. People who choose NOT to acquire that right have made a (presumptively) valid judgment on the value of such a right. What you are proposing is tantamount to having your neighbours cake and eating it too! Such behavior leads to tooth decay - and worse (;-) I have been a vocal defender of the concept that survey participation should be as wide open as possible, to get the best possible debate; but that voting should be reserved to those who choose to earn the right, by becoming members. Thanks for listening as I got that off my chest! TOny