You did say reputation, certainly. However, you are propagating a myth by
continuing to spread that there is a reputation. Many people seem to
disagree that COMMON has that reputation, so why should you continue to
make it a topic? A few complainers on midrange-L do not a reputation make.
And they primarily complained about the 'high' hotel costs - that is the
strange part. The attendance at COMMON conferences would also seem to
resist that particular reputation.
Certainly, we need to be able to talk about those kinds of things, but
that rarely happens here. This group simply needs someone to kindle a
myth, and the fire begins. Your posting was unnecessary, rather it seemed
to be a complaint that COMMON did not market according to your own
personal standards, beefed up by identifying more of COMMON's perceived
failings. Ironically, you even suggested that you "long ago tuned out
anything having to do with COMMON", so how would you know whether "this
free, virtual, open event was not more heavily promoted"? Your posting,
overall, was more complaint than neutral observation. And that complaint
can be easily perceived as an attack.
I think COMMON gets a bad rap from a few people who complain on
midrange-L. Your posting was just another continuation in that series, and
I think it is time we recognize that COMMON, in spite of all the things
people claim it does ~not~ do, makes a valuable contribution to the
community. That is hard to do when there is all this negativity and noise.
And, FWIW, $1695 is not a high cost for education. It may be relative to
you not being willing to invest that in your own education or career, but
in comparison to education and conferences in the IT industry, this is
quite a low cost.
On 1/7/13 12:40 PM, "John Yeung" <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't have any beef with COMMON, and I thought I used quite neutral
language. I said it has a reputation. Regardless of whether you
think that reputation is deserved, it most definitely has that
reputation. If you think that expressing the existence of a
reputation is "perpetuating a myth" then how are we supposed to
discuss anything at all? How are we supposed to *overturn*
perceptions if we aren't allowed to even say what the perceptions are?
In all seriousness, please read my previous post again, but without
the assumption that I am in any way attacking COMMON or the IBM i. I
never said COMMON was unjustified, unfair, or even overpriced.
I do want to respond to one thing you said in particular, though:
When you say "it has a reputation for high-cost membership, high-cost
events", you are helping propagate a strange myth. This years Annual
conference will cost you a standard rate of $1695. The recent IBM Power
Systems Technical University cost $1995.
I take issue with calling this not only a myth, but a *strange* one.
From the point of view of many IT departments, it is just as *strange*that you think $1695 is NOT a high cost. You can express disagreement
without the value judgments. You have a better chance of changing
someone's mind if you can educate them without implying that there is
something wrong with them for not already holding your point of view.