[HPCC-Conf] Conference Report
Jo Vandale
hpcc-conf@lists.handheld.org
Sat Oct 5 02:20:02 2002
Hi All,
I did not read all the stuff below, however I do see that Tony is touching
some of the issues mentioned in my review (let's hope it get published ;-).
I do miss the point that inviting people is not a right way to do a
conference??? My view is totally differrent: "the more people the more fun"
... and you do have to invite them if you like them to come.
I also respect the dedication of the American to pay so much for joining a
European conference! Due to the high cost (and only that) I never joined a
US conference ;-)
Regards,
Jo
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: hpcc-conf-admin@lists.handheld.org
> [mailto:hpcc-conf-admin@lists.handheld.org]Namens Tony Duell
> Verzonden: zaterdag 5 oktober 2002 1:38
> Aan: hpcc-conf@lists.handheld.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [HPCC-Conf] Conference Report
>
>
> [I am not sure this should be on the mailing list, but as Richard has
> made some unpleasant and IMHO incorrect comments here, I feel
> I have to
> give my version as well]
>
> > At 10/3/200210:56 PM+0100, you wrote:
> > > > 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!).
> >
> > You have made these comments several times. I am not sure what you
>
> I've explained this in my reply to Joe Horn. Basically, the
> conference
> was partially organised by you, a non-member, it was run
> almost entirely
> as you wished (so it was really the same as one of your
> conferences), and
> I feel it was run for the benefit of American club members, not HPCC
> members. That's why I don't think of it as an HPCC event.
>
> > mean by them. I assisted Wlodek with the Conference to help him.
> > Let me say this again - to help him. He was in charge at
> all times and
> > he knew what was going on at all times. You clearly don't know what
>
> You seem to think that Wlodek == HPCC. I do not.
>
> > > > 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 not my complaint. My comment is that it should have
> been made
> > >clear from the start
> >
> > The start of what? Do you think that there is a time when you know
> > exactly what and when is going to happen at the conference?
>
> Therre darn well should be!
>
> > You don't understand how dynamic these things are. You are too
>
> That is the big problem. What _you_ fail to realise, I think, is that
> these last minute changes, extra talks, etc removed parts of the
> conference that I personally would have enjoyed (namely time
> to talk to
> other enthusiasts). Oh, you got all the talks _you_ wanted, but....
>
> > rigid in your expectations. Will you be the one to stand
> up and say -
> > WAIT, I just noticed that the slide said something we don't agree
> > with - and then get everyones agreement as what to do next? Three
> > people fly thousands of miles because they were invited and you
>
> I was against inviting _anybody_ from the start!. I don't feel it's
> necessary or even desirable. Unless your idea of the conference is to
> have the same old crowd meeting up each year at various
> places. But then
> again, at least one of the conference organisers has admitted to me
> that's precisely what he wanted.
>
> I'd rather have people coming who _want_ to come, talking
> about what they
> want to talk about. That way you might at least get some
> presentations
> with content...
>
> > will do that? Life is not so ideal in the real world.
> >
> > >that the conference details would be published
> > >as/when the organisers saw fit. And that we should not accept
> > >presentations
> >
> > You make making assumptions that are not valid. We had now
> > idea who was coming or exactly what they would say. I will bet
>
> This does not mean you can't lay down some ground rules that
> would apply
> no matter who was coming and what they were talking about!
>
> > that they were not sure either until they sized up the group. You
> > keep assuming an ideal world, it is not. I agree with you
> in principle
> > and some day you may be the one making the decisions - Good luck.
>
> In some ways you remind me of a manager I once had to put up
> with. His
> view was that if something had always been done in a certain
> way, then it
> had to be done that way, and there was no reason to try anything else
> (even if someebody had good reasons for thinking it would be an
> improvement). I, of course, regarded him as an idiot.
>
> I am assuming you've never tried to run a conference where
> everything is
> rigidly defined in advance -- no last minute talks, full
> ground rules set
> out. I haven't either.
>
> But I have been to several 'proper' conferences (not HP calculator
> related) where the timetable was rigidly defined in advance,
> where there
> were clear conditions placed on a presentation, and so on. And I can
> assure you I enjoyed them a lot more than this HPCC
> conference, for all
> the subject matter should have been less interesting to me.
>
> Perhaps an HP calculator conference run rigidly would be a
> disaster, I
> don't know. Perhaps it would be a great success. But the only
> way to find
> out is tor try it. And that will never happen if all the
> major conferences
> around the world are essentially organised by one person.
>
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > You will eventually, given more time.
>
> Not unless somebody explains it to me...
>
> At one time I could see a clear benefit to the club of
> 'keeping on the
> right side of HP'. Namely that they'd release useful, internal,
> information to us. But AFAIK they've released no detailed
> information to
> clubs on any of the RPL machines (if they have, then the general HPCC
> members have never seen it!). And if they're no longer designing and
> making calculators (only specifying designs for other companies to
> make), then I feel it's unlikely they'll even have
> information to release
> in the future.
>
>
> >
> > NOMAS is a user group concept designed by me, negotiated by me, and
> > only possible because we were part of the "HP family". You
> can be sure
> > of one thing. The kind of information that we obtained in
> the past would
> > not have been available if the group was independent of HP. We
>
> Sure, but that was then and this is now... Have you managed
> to get the
> source code, or IC data, for any of the RPL machines under
> NOMAS? Do you
> feel you'll be able to get such information on future machines?
>
> > accomplished the impossible in some cases. I told one
> story about the
> > use of PPC EPROMS. I am sorry, what you suggest is contrary to what
> > has worked very well for 28 years. Of course things have changed,
>
> AS I said above. 'It's worked for 20 years, so we can't
> possibly consider
> changing it'....
>
> > but still there are reasons to consider HP's needs. We all
> want the same
> > thing - the best possible machines.
>
> If you honestly think HP would make the machines you and I
> really want,
> then I really feel you are living in another world! HP do
> _not_ want to
> make the best possible machines any more. That much is
> obvious to anyone
> who has ever used an HP49G...
>
> >
> > >I have to ask 'what can HP really do for user groups now'?
> I think 'very
> > >little.
> >
> > Will you donate five HP49's to the next conference? Check
> with Wlodek
> > on what was gained by HPCC.
>
> Oh, this is pathetic! The reason to keep in with HP is so that we get
> free machines to give away as door prizes ??!?!?
>
> I was against the whole idea of prizes at the conference, BTW. I have
> never been to any conference other than an HPCC one where there are
> prizes of any description. And certainly not randomly-chosen
> door prizes.
> But the American conferences have always had door prizes so
> we have them
> too...
>
> I am not at all convinced that anyone attended the conference
> so as to
> get a chance of winning a door prize. I know it didn't affect
> my decision
> to attend _at all_. Most (all!) people came to meet others
> and to listen
> to the presentations.
>
> Just let me indicate why I am worried about the club becoming too
> closely connected with HP :
>
> A few years ago I was involved in a club project called the '42SV
> project'. AS you doubtless know, the HP42 has an 8K RAM chip in it, a
> standard low-power 6264 chip. After cracking a machine open
> and examining
> the PCB, I realised that a 32K RAM chip (a stnadard 62256) would also
> work if you changed a solder-blob configureation pad. So I
> desoldered the
> 8K chip, soldered in a new 32K chip and moved the blob. The internal
> software was clearly designed to work with such a configuration -- it
> recognised the extra RAM with no problems (FWIW, the firmware in the
> 17B-II will not use more RAM, even though it's trivial to fit the 32K
> chip to this machine also -- it's actually the same PCB). We
> named the
> result the 42SV for the obvious reason. Please note that I
> had no inside
> information from HP to do this -- I just took a machine apart
> and probed
> around inside, like I often do.
>
> So, if it's so easy and cheap to fit the 32K RAM (I think the chip in
> 1-off quantities was around \pounds 10.00), why didn't HP
> sell a '42SV'.
> One reason suggested (I have no idea if this is correct, but
> assume it is
> for the moment) is that it was a marketting decision so that the 42S
> would not overly compete against the 48SX. If that's true,
> then HP might
> have been unhappy with us for making a couple. Now legally there's
> nothing they can do about it, but if the club was not totally
> independant
> of HP, then they might prevent the club from discussing such
> things, from
> printing photos of the modified PCB, and so on. That's
> something I would
> not want to happen.
>
> IMHO the ability to discuss what we like is much more important than
> getting door prizes.
>
>
> > >Acrurate, yes. But we should not delay an issue just to
> suit HP's ideas.
> >
> > You miss the point completely. Again you are so rigid in
> your thinking.
> > HP doesn't care when you publish, they just want it to be
> appropriate in
> > its timing. It is getting the information to the members
> that counts.
>
> They care about what we publish in the sense that they care
> if we publish
> it too early...
>
> I think what you don't realise is that we do have 'stuffing
> parties' over
> here too. We stuff the envelopes at a monthly club meeting.
> Which means
> that either the issue is delayed by an entire month, or we
> have to get
> enough people together a week or so later to stuff envelopes, or one
> person has to do the lot. None of these are particularly satisfactory.
>
> > The policy is up to the board as they guide the editor.
> Would you like
> > timely information or "old" information. Why publish news type
> > information at all? Ooops, of course, you want only
> schematics, etc.
> > Fine, but there has to be a balance.
>
> What I want is information which will let me use the machines
> I already
> have, or which I could go out and buy, to the best of their
> capabilities.
> Not just schematics, or even only low-level information. User-level
> programming tips are great too.
>
> But I really don't see the point in printing information
> about machines
> that don't exist and may never exist. I can't base anything on that.
>
> >
> > >We publish their information in the first issue after they
> release it.
> >
> > And if you know that news can be released two days after the normal
> > publishing date? In this case the news will be two months old. If
>
> Do you want to come over here and stuff the envelopes for us?
>
> > you ARE NOT in dependant HP may work with you. I think you
> > should be the editor for a while so you will gain a
> perspective on what
> > can and cannot be done. Again, work first, then complain.
>
> Quite honestly I find your continual comments that I do nothing to be
> insulting in the extreme. For your information I put a lot of
> time into
> HPCC, not necessarily in 'visible' ways.
>
> -tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> HPCC-Conf mailing list
> HPCC-Conf@lists.handheld.org
> http://lists.handheld.org/mailman/listinfo/hpcc-conf
>