I've been watching this thread, and resolved to be quiet, but I think
some perspective might be helpful. I am a long time volunteer to COMMON
and former board member and served as Executive VP and Treasurer along
the way. I continue to volunteer because I learn more than I teach, and
I have found some very good friends as an added bonus.
Why is COMMON bothering? That's because COMMON is a users group that
masquerades as a conference provider. True most of the operating
revenue comes from the Spring Annual Meeting and the Fall event, but in
the end it's still a users group, and most of the volunteers are trying
to keep it that way. So sometimes COMMON tries to generate some
enthusiasm in the market place for IBM i by doing these types of events.
The attendees get great information, and some of the vendors get a
chance to connect with potential customers. I don't know of a single
time COMMON has given vendors registration information, and while I have
no inside knowledge of this event, I suspect the time honored practice
of protecting the membership list is in place. The vendors get their
information from you, not from COMMON. I could be wrong but I would be
surprised in that case. That's why at the conferences and meetings you
have a bar code on your badge, so vendors can get that data, if you
As to the cost of putting on the event, true there is a base cost, but
there is also a variable cost for each attendee as well, so it's not
exactly a flat cost curve. The way COMMON will make its money, is the
more people that register, the more it can charge vendors to be in the
virtual expo, to have a chance that you will investigate their
products. The more attendees the better the odds that one of them will
eventually buy something.
I encourage you to register for the event. The list of topics is
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
On 1/7/2013 2:40 PM, John Yeung wrote:
No one said it is anyone's responsibility to promote anything. What I
am saying is, if COMMON is going to bother to have a virtual
conference, which costs something to produce, then it will be *better
for COMMON* if COMMON makes it better known.
This conference is going to cost COMMON the same amount to produce
whether zero people watch it or a million people. I think COMMON
would be better off with an actual viewership closer to a million
people rather than closer to zero.