[HPCC-Conf] Conference Report

[Tony Duell]

> The situation this year was exceptional.  HP was gone for over two years.

THis is not a valid reason, IMHO, particularly not at an HPCC conference 
(which this claimed to be, even though I somewhat doubt it was!). 

> The "new" team was meeting the "Community" for the first time.  We
> had no idea what to expect just they had no idea what to expect.  I think

That's nnt my complaint. My comment is that it should have been made 
clear from the start that the conference details would be published 
as/when the organisers saw fit. And that we should not accept 
presentations that had any form of 'secrecy' attached to them. If HP 
didn't want to tell us about their future plans, or if they didn't want 
to come at all, I am not sure we'd have been any worse off.

> that they were surprised and impressed.  As it turned out, no one knew
> what they were going to say until they said it.  Even the people who
> attended were not the ones who were going to attend originally.  I agree
> that it is uncomfortable to be put in such a position, but sometimes
> things just happen beyond anyones control.

As a point for future conferences, I guess we should make clear under 
just what terms we'd accept a presentation (apart from the above, I would 
think the origanisers should get an abstract in advance so they have some 
idea as to what will be talked about). 

[...]

> > > Do you like having HP attend meetings and Conferences?
> >
> >As I've said before, I want HPCC to remain indepedant of HP. If HP wish
> >to attend our meetings then it has to be on _our_ terms. If they don't
> >like said terms, then they should stay away.
> 
> That balance of independence and sharing mutual interests is a difficult
> one that each group has to work out on an incident by incident basis.  This
> "balance" between our interests and HP's interests is a vital part of who

I really don't see why?

> we are.  As I have said, I don't believe that a totally independent group is
> healthy or a good idea when you look at the special situation of Calculators.

Why not? Back when HP were actaully designing and making their own 
calculators, it was possible that they would release various NOMAS 
information to user groups. Now that they're not actually doing much (if 
any) of the design, I think that's unlikely.

I have to ask 'what can HP really do for user groups now'? I think 'very 
little'. 

[...]

> >And FWIW, I would be totally against delaying an issue of DataFile
> >because of this. Sure we can't publish this information before HP allow
> >us to, but that just means it goes in the next issue. DataFile is not an
> >HP publicity flyer.
> 
> Absolutely, but I also believe the DAtafile should serve its readers by
> providing accurate and timely information.  That is the struggle of the

Acrurate, yes. But we should not delay an issue just to suit HP's ideas. 
We publish their information in the first issue after they release it.

I don't think DataFile was ever delayed for the release of a new model 
calculator, let alone some possibly incorrect marketing information. And 
that's the way it should be.

> editor.  If it were easy anyone could do the job.  I don't know the

The main problem with being editor IMHO is actually convincing people to 
write articles....

-tony