Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered!
Not a technical thread: it's a community/politics argument sparked by claims that the IIUG president published misleading or untrue accounts of Informix history. The original poster argues members should demand his resignation and that apathy is hastening Informix's decline. Double Echo counters that the IIUG is largely irrelevant, IBM-funded and effectively an IBM mouthpiece, and that board members serve their own interests; former board member Neil Truby rejects that, saying his 2.5 years brought no personal gain and much unpaid effort. The exchange ends in disagreement with no resolution and no technical content.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
I am really surprised that nobody in the Informix community has asked for this guy to be replaced (the president of the IIUG). You can joke about it, but the president has written 2 articles that aren't just misleading, but not true. It's one thing to say it, another to publish it. There always seems to be plenty of energy to complain, but not enough to make a change. The members of the IIUG have an opportunity to demand that the president resign. The apathy is contributing to the death of Informix. Many have written about concerns and complaints about the IIUG, but nobody seems to care enough to try to change it. If you stand by and watch, soon there will be nothing to watch. mweallans@panacea.co.uk wrote: > Dave, > I find the fact that Stuart is President of IIUG and giving misleading > information about past events to be mildly amusing. Isn't that what > all american presidents do? > Those of US who worked for the company in the early days know better > don't we? > > regards > MalcolmThere is bunches of energy to complain about things, but not enough to
me wrote: > I am really surprised that nobody in the Informix community has asked > for this guy to be replaced (the president of the IIUG). You can joke > about it, but the president has written 2 articles that aren't just > misleading, but not true. It's one thing to say it, another to publish > it. > Then the question becomes, "What does it matter one way or the other?" While the IIUG may be great for a repository of code and a great watering hole for birds of a feather, and a good FAQ, it begs the question as to what else does it really bring to the table. So what if the president of an organization few care about says anything misleading. Who cares? What is the sound of trees falling if there is no one to hear it? Informix is big in the minds of those who use it, but it has no presence outside its own. Historically many of the IIUG board members were there only for their own gain, few were actually there to promote user advocacy--which I believe was one of the pillars of this organization. Today it's just a mouthpiece for IBM with its foot in its mouth. > There always seems to be plenty of energy to complain, but not enough > to make a change. The members of the IIUG have an opportunity to demand > that the president resign. > And what does that get the members? What do they correct in the process? What will the next guy/gal do that will mean anything? What is the point? > The apathy is contributing to the death of Informix. Many have written > about concerns and complaints about the IIUG, but nobody seems to care > enough to try to change it. > Are you sure there is a connection there? The IIUG isn't going to make or break Informix, IBM owns Informix, and the IIUG, they are the ones who are responsible. > If you stand by and watch, soon there will be nothing to watch. > It's like any good train wreck, you just have to watch. The clean-up process is actually kind of boring. :o)
DE - Simple question - have you ever worked for IBM or Informix? Curious....
me wrote: > DE - > > Simple question - have you ever worked for IBM or Informix? > > Curious.... > Neither. Never.
"Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message news:_A3bg.118314$Ek3.88507@fe52.usenetserver.com... > me wrote: > Historically many of the IIUG board members were there only for their own > gain, few were actually there to promote user advocacy--which I believe > was one of the pillars of this organization. Aside from the opportunity to visit some N American cities, all of which I'd visited before, at IBM's expense I made absolutely no personal gain whatsoever on my 2.5 years on the IIUG Board. But it took up a *hell* of a lot of my time. And I never noticed that a single one of my 20 or so co-members over that period was in it for him- or herself either. You might think that the IIUG Board is ineffective, and that's fine, but it is unfair to impugn the motives of its members, most if not all of whom give their time selflessly and care every bit as much as you do.
Neil Truby wrote: > "Double Echo" <doubleecho@your.com> wrote in message > news:_A3bg.118314$Ek3.88507@fe52.usenetserver.com... >> me wrote: > >> Historically many of the IIUG board members were there only for their own >> gain, few were actually there to promote user advocacy--which I believe >> was one of the pillars of this organization. > > Aside from the opportunity to visit some N American cities, all of which I'd > visited before, at IBM's expense I made absolutely no personal gain > whatsoever on my 2.5 years on the IIUG Board. But it took up a *hell* of a > lot of my time. And I never noticed that a single one of my 20 or so > co-members over that period was in it for him- or herself either. You might > think that the IIUG Board is ineffective, and that's fine, but it is unfair > to impugn the motives of its members, most if not all of whom give their > time selflessly and care every bit as much as you do. > > I'm glad you read my posting carefully, otherwise you might have seen me say something that was all-inclusive, blanketing the whole IIUG Board. Whew! That was a close call. But to your comments, I doubt most people that were or are on the board participate without some kind of personal gain--it's not a bad thing to get something out of it. Where I see the issue is in people getting a little too close to the vendor and not being able to remain objective. Is it a requirement to be objective? Again, it points to the point of what the organization is all about. If the organization is there for end users then I would expect to see more for them and less about who gets what position or title or how much sucking up to IBM or Informix can they do to curry favor in personal gains. If that's the goal of the organization--to have more politicians who want to feather their resumes, it really sends a bad message to people that there is this user organization out there for end users, but because it's so politically charged it probably won't listen much to them, and instead listen more to the vendor. The core of the problem is that the organization is funded by IBM, and thusly it can never have the true objectivity it really needs to be something for users. Instead it is inbound marketing for IBM. That's ok too, just don't put lipstick on the pig and tell me it's something else other than a pig.