>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 4:36 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -snip- > I guess we'll probably agree to disagree here. Still, here's a view from > a different point.
If I take all your premises at face value, I would say we would agree on the conclusion. I don't necessarily agree with all the premises, though. Although some people at SHARE would like to think we can compete with other UNIX/Linux conferences, I don't agree that we can, are, or should. So, agreement #1. When we poll attendees in our Linux and z/VM sessions, 90% of them are MVS folks that have been told they're going to be doing z/VM and Linux. I think moving that content into a separate conference would result in getting very little to no attendees, since their management won't pay to send them two places. I know Adam tells me that most of the proof of concept projects he gets involved with, he's dealing with UNIX/Linux admins who know nothing about z/VM or mainframes in general. I doubt we're going to get their business, but it is possible. I don't see that outnumbering the MVS attendance, so I think trying to draw them away from other UNIX/Linux conferences would be a bad move. While SHARE as a whole is rather un-agile (agreement #2), the LVM Project isn't. What really hurts our project the most is the inability of SHARE as a whole to promote the content we do have, and could have. I'm not sure why it's so hard, but it seems to be, as we've seen time and again. I've personally wished, at times, for a mainframe-Linux specific conference, so I do understand where you're coming from (agreement #3). I'm just very unsure it would be any sort of success. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
