Re: IIUG Board Nominations - "Where's the Board?"

Christine Normile said: > It's important that this be elevated appropriately. OTC is on target > with his assessment of the job. > > Mark did not raise this as a personal issue either on his own or my > behalf. As a matter of fact, Mark was probably very surprised to see > that I had tossed my hat into the ring at all. > > While I have a genuine desire to serve the Informix community, I > submitted my nomination fully expecting it to be rejected. I have > been, and will continue to be, outspoken about how the IIUG is run. > And that is not acceptable to the current powers that be. Well, that's fine and dandy, and perfectly within your rights to hold that opinion. However, by taking this matter public, I'm not at all convinced that you have chosen the best course. And I'm speaking from experience here, I'm not some "Mr Perfect". I've gone public with something where I genuinely felt I was justified in doing it, and it was in the greater good for me to do so. All that came of it was a bunch of people wound up being (more) convinced that I was complete whingeing dickhead. Phrases like "powers that be" make it sound like the IIUG is the CIA. If the IIUG is anything like a local IUG, then there's no dark art to it, just a bunch of people doing what they can with limited resources and bugger-all help or appreciation. If people on the IIUG board get something out of it, whether materially or ego-stroking, they're probably entitled to it. *I* wouldn't want the job -- just the travel requirement gave me the shits, God knows what the rest of it is like. > I'm sure that's why Mark raised the issue. Manipulating the > nomination process to suit the sitting board's own ends is > reprehensible (grab that dictionary again!). It highlights that the > board is not focused on serving the Informix community at large. I don't even know if this constituted manipulating the nomination process. It may well have, it may not, I really just couldn't be arsed to find out. Frankly, if I get the opportunity to go to conferences, free downloads, a free email gateway to Usenet, free fora, free talk to the lab sessions, and a whole lot of other stuff that I don't even know about, then I think the board IS focused on serving the community at large. (But that's just my opinion, looking at the results. The motivation may be wrong, but the results to this user look pretty good for a free service.) > For that reason, this issue needs to be raised and the community > needs to respond to it appropriately. I believe that the best way to > respond is via the democratic process. To wit, unseat the existing > board in the upcoming election. And I express my sincerest apologies > to the members of the board who I know are trying to do a good job in > spite of a bad situation. It's an interesting election strategy, and I wish you well with it. > You've seen everything I was sent officially from Sam. > > What I was told by a board member (let the witch hunt begin!) was > that I was deemed unfit for the board because I have divulged > confidential board information. That would be a reference to the > board's failure to make the IDS v10 download available. That was not > board confidential information. It was information that as IDS v10 > product manager I had full knowledge of and felt no obligation to > withhold from the community. Whatever, really. As it stands right now, the board HAS made IDS 10 available, and since I can't remember what I had for breakfast, what happened whenever this was, isn't particularly relevant to me right now. I'm sorry if that does not sound sympathetic, but that's just the way it is. I don't think the IIUG is perfect, but they have got us IDS 10, they did get a conference in Europe, there is a continuous barrage of stuff in my in-tray from them that I delete without reading. So, from my personal perspective as an Informix user, they are doing something. Whether its the right thing, well, that's open to discussion. Are they doing enough? Who knows? They do enough to make me feel like I'm getting more than value for my money -- especially since i don't give them a cent. Are they too dependent on IBM? Probably, but in all honesty, I blame the users for that. They want everything and they don't want to pay for it, so my personal take is "bugger it, let IBM fund it. They won't miss the money." But there *are* certain consequences of that, namely that perceived independence is lost, whether or not actual independence is lost. People (Double Echo, take a bow!) bleat on about how the IIUG doesn't fight IBM on our behalf. But that's a consequence of *you* (that's everyone reading this) not sticking *your* hand in your pocket and funding the IIUG. The IIUG has to get money from somewhere, and since IBM is the ONLY hand that's feeding it, they're entitled to only be nibbled gently, rather than bitten vigorously. If you want a more confrontational UG, like the OUG is to Oracle, that's going to cost a LOT of money and a LOT of effort to set up. And I bet you you get a whole bunch of Oracle users pissing on about the OUG as well. So at the end of it, would you have gained anything? Possibly the names of the people moaning might change, and the nature of the moans would change, but people would still be unhappy. Personally, I'm not sure that a complete upchuck would be a positive result for "the community". There would be a massive discontinuity, a whole new set of relationships would have to be built, knowledge would be lost, etc., etc. But I'm particularly averse to having my cheese moved, too. My original opinion (and it's just my opinion) stands, I'm not sure that you / Mark approached this in the right way. I know I alienated a lot of people who should have been on my side when I tried a similar tactic. I really don't think this issue should ever have appeared outside of the election committee (or whatever it's called) and yourself / yourselves. I'm sure there are things wrong with the IIUG, just as I'm sure there are things right with the IIUG. I'm just not sure that an Oracle-style marketing campaign is the way to further your cause. Having said all that (and f*ck me, it was a lot!) I hope you get this matter resolved to your satisfaction. One way or another. ;o) -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > People (Double Echo, take a bow!) bleat on about how the IIUG doesn't > fight IBM on our behalf. Actually I don't. I only complain that the perception that the IIUG is for users is wrong. It's a misrepresentation that I'm complaining ( bleating bah bah-bah-bah ) about. End-user advocacy is important, and people do have that erroneous expectation that the IIUG is for the user, but it's not that kind of user group. The IIUG is also not the only game in town. That's why I said to Christine to start her own group, and make it work the way you want. But I am on the same page as you are Clown, I know it takes time, effort, and cold hard cash to make it work. Unless people are willing to chip in they really can't complain. ( Reminds me of the Monty Python "You can't complain unless you've paid" scene :-) I gave up a long time ago hoping that the IIUG would go to bat for end-users, that's why for the most part I complain ( bleat ) here, because it keeps it out in the open. And I actually do get support for my bleating--just no cash. :-)

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > I'm just not sure that an Oracle-style > marketing campaign is the way to further your cause. I don't think there's anything remarkably Oracle-style in the marketing campaign being waged. In fact, I would say remarkably more IBM style - obtuse, misguided, and only of interest to the people behind the actual campaign.

"Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message news:1I39h.36521$U_2.31453@fe56.usenetserver.com... > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> ( Reminds me of the Monty Python "You can't complain > unless you've paid" scene :-) "*I'm* not allowed to *argue* unless you pay".

Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message > news:1I39h.36521$U_2.31453@fe56.usenetserver.com... > >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> ( Reminds me of the Monty Python "You can't complain >> unless you've paid" scene :-) > > "*I'm* not allowed to *argue* unless you pay". > > Close - "I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!"

Mark Townsend said: > Captain Pedantic wrote: >> "Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message >> news:1I39h.36521$U_2.31453@fe56.usenetserver.com... >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> ( Reminds me of the Monty Python "You can't complain >>> unless you've paid" scene :-) >> >> "*I'm* not allowed to *argue* unless you pay". >> >> > Close - "I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!" Out-pedanted by an Oracle salesman...oh, the shame! -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.