RE: Stuart strikes again - history is altered!
IIUG by-laws state that the IIUG Board Directors are the only ones who can vote to add or remove the President. The Informix community votes for who gets to be on the board every year. As for your statement, "soon there will be nothing to watch", you might direct that at Jean-Georges Perrin. He sits on the current iiug board of directors and is in charge of, "The Future Direction of the IIUG", per the Presidents speech during the IIUG Annual General Meeting in Tampa. -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of me Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:03 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: Stuart strikes again - history is altered! 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 _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own cause. If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles that are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing.
me wrote: > Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes > details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own cause. He's not the first to use the IIUG for their own gain. Sheesh, stand in line, the first wave had authors on board who basically were just cheerleaders. > If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles that > are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things > knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board > "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing. > What character? :-) Quick--don't google it--give the name right now of the president of the IDUG, or Sybase's user group, or Oracle's user group. Who are they? You most likely don't know because you don't run in those camps. The IIUG is big in _your_ mind only because you see it as important. But the reality is that the IIUG is not really important, they don't exist unless you use Informix and want to associate with the IIUG because of whatever reasons you choose to do so. The IIUG is occasionally important when occasionally quoted in trade magazines, but hardly relevant because Informix is hardly relevant. The board of directors is just a political body. When Informix is important the IIUG will be important. Until then you're wasting your time. What are they going to do? Fire the guy? He's cheerleading for free!
me said: > Well - the board apparently doesn't care if the president publishes > details about his career that aren't true - just to help his own cause. > If they do - we will see some action. I mean really - TWO articles that > are not accurate? The fact that someone would say these things > knowingly, and that doesn't reflect on their character, AND the board > "blesses it" by lack of concern - amazing. In other news, it's raining in Chipping Norton today. -- Bye now, Obnoxio Information within this post contains forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the S E C Act of 1934. Statements that involve discussions with respect to projections of future events are not statements of historical fact and may be forward looking statements. Don't rely on them to make a decision. The poster is not a reporting company registered under the Exchange Act of 1934. I have received a life peerage from Her Majesty, who is not an officer, minister or affiliate Labour party member. I intend to recover my loan now, which could cause the parliamentary majority to go down, resulting in losses for you. Today's Labour party has: an accumulated deficit and a reliance on loans from officers and affiliates to pay expenses. It is not an operating political party. The party is going to need financing to continue as a going concern. A failure to finance could cause the party to go out of business. This report shall not be construed as any kind of investment advice or solicitation. You can lose all your money by investing in this party.