> >>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 2:26 PM, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > David > Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -snip- > > Given that SHARE doesn't seem to want this content > Eh? I never said that. I said the SHARE _attendees_ don't seem to want > content like this. When we put on sessions of this level, we get around 3 > or 5 people to show up.
I think that's a chicken/egg problem. With low attendance, SHARE tends to be fairly hostile to scheduling such sessions, as you already commented. If such sessions are *not* scheduled (and seen to be scheduled/featured in the larger world that is not part of the normal SHARE crowd), then the attendees who would find those sessions interesting/useful don't bother to attend SHARE at all because it offers them no benefit. Personally, looking over the last 5 SHARE agendas showed a total of 25 sessions that would have drawn my interest (out of thousands), averaging about 5 sessions per meeting. 5 sessions per meeting does not a compelling cost case make for something as expensive as SHARE usually is. Others here at SNA do find it interesting and useful, but the current agenda doesn't attract people like me, which is what you need to get those numbers up for deep-dive sessions, and to get enough buzz to start attracting other people. You're also fighting the established large Unix systems conferences such as LISA and Usenix that currently draw 3-5K attendees now. They already DO offer those kind of sessions for Unix and Linux folks (taught by Linus or Alan or someone of that caliber), and they get attendance of 75-100 or more *because those sessions are there*. SHARE has tried to compete with the mainstream Unix conferences before, and failed miserably. SHARE does not have the mindshare or the budget to play in that league any more, even in the AIX world with IBM backing. If we want that level of detail content in a mainframe context, IMHO, it's time to create something other than SHARE to deliver it. SHARE has too much baggage to carry to be agile enough to grab this market, and IMHO, it'd be better for both organizations to divide the mainframe environment into z/OS and Linux/VM and let the two do what they do best separately. SHARE does a premier job on the z/OS side, no doubt or argument. I don't see it as the best place to promote VM and Linux development long term. I don't see how SHARE can react fast enough to survive if it tries to be everything to everybody, and having VM and Linux be a poor stepchild chained to all that baggage is a sad thing. I guess we'll probably agree to disagree here. Still, here's a view from a different point. -- db ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
