NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/decus/1085

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!gatech!wa4mei!nanovx!dragon!cts
From: [e-mail] (Charles T. Smith, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.org.decus
Subject: Re: EXECUTION of DECUS Standards
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 92 06:36:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited
Lines: 80

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff Killeen) writes:
[various text deleted througout]
>
> The reason why our attendees (for the most part) come to Symposia and Seminars
> is because they are looking for practical technical information that will make
> them and their company/enterprise more successful.  They want real world
> solutions and advice from fellow technically oriented users who are working
> the same types of problems they are.  They want to be able to meet with the
> vendor's engineering community and dialog.  They want to be able to network
> with their fellow peers.  They don't want politics.  They don't want sales
> sessions that tell them here is a problem now buy my product to solve it.  And
> they don't want a ton of theory sessions that have no immediate application.
> The want real world technically oriented users and vendor engineering staffs
> sharing with them how to most effectively leverage their computing
> environment. They want the opportunity to interact with the vendors in order
> to gain improved products.  They want a trade show type environment where they
> can comparison shop. And finally it is very important this all be in a
> multi-vendor context.  DECUS must be the skill/information source for those
> who are response for implementing and delivering technology for their
> enterprise.  The customer metric must as a result of their contact with DECUS
> did they gain enough in value to make them and their company successful enough
> to offset the time and dollar cost invested to consume.

And to think I'd thought all along that the sole purpose of sympiosia was
to fund all the other activities - observation trips to Decus/France,
woods meetings (some in fairly upscale resorts), etc, etc, etc...

You can take that with a 1/2 :-).  But only half.

The last budget I looked even halfway close at 1989 and 1990.  At least
back then, and I'd wager still to an extent, that there's a lot of revenue
from the symposia that is being used for OTHER than something that directly
or indirectly impacts the customer.

From my admittedly limited viewpoint, let's take an example.  Somewhere
recently, I believe that you mentioned flying 60,000 miles to lug
events and local meetings.

Were these paid for by the lugs, or is this another project funded out
of the general kitty, which for the most part Symposia/Seminars fill?

What is the benifit of this activity for the general consumer of
Digital products?  Keeping firmly in mind that I have little idea of
what you do, I see nothing that improves the value of the decus products
I consume.

On the other hand, I see standards as something that provides the
user with an access channel to the standards process - something
that may not be a concern much of the time as the nuance of syntax
is worked out, but could become a major issue as the move to standards
continues to swell and the systems I create, market, or use are
impacted.

Yet, the issue is not whether standards are useful or not, but rather
the process of how the whole thing is decided.  You paint an interesting
picture of what the users want above;  however, attendance is down
and is staying down, even though the economy is finally picking up a
bit (of course, I'll also point out that scheduling a symposia in
Las Vegas is a sure way to convince some employeers that DECUS is
merely playtime for the technical staff which may have been a factor
this time).

Hmm.  This is starting to ramble a bit.  The point I'm trying to make is
that you, at least, seem to have some idea of what the customer wants.
Yet, the symposia revenue is not directed just at improving that
product;  the bucks litterally go everywhere.  How much of this does
zilch for the consumer of decus products, how much is justifable
overhead, and how much can be eliminated without damaging what
the end user needs?

It's one thing if these are openly discussed BEFORE hard choices are
made.  It's something else entirely, to my mind, when not only is it
done in a fashion which appears to be to a semi-outsider, in a
back-room fashion, but without the participation of someone who by
all appearances should be involved.  Ditto the comments for the library
thing discussed on Decuserve.

--
Charles T. Smith, Jr.
[e-mail]