[kwlug disc.] Corporate/proprietary presentations

[unsolicited]

Raul Suarez wrote, On 04/09/2008 10:47 PM:
> --- unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>> We seem to be perpetually hurting for presenters. 
> 
> Always "asking" for presenters does not mean that we
> don't have enough.

No, but not long ago we were asking for presenters because we had none 
in the queue.

>  We have presenters and topics. I guess the "asking"
> is to make sure people are interested in what's
> available.
> 
>> If a vendor is  offering, don't look a gift horse 
>> in the mouth.
> I do, even when I go to conferences I'm very choosy to
> attend vendor neutral sessions.

I didn't say blindly accept.

> An offer from a vendor is anything but a gift. It is
> always a sales pitch oportunity. That's OK, but don't
> be missleaded. It is not a gift.

It is when nothing else is on the table. If an acceptable vendor is 
offering, and there's a dearth of other offerings, be grateful. Of the 
gift where someone is offering to come in and do something for free. 
aka a gift. All gifts have some amount of strings attached. There is 
always some level of quid pro quo, even within families.

>> A couple of messages have implied that vendors are
>> approaching the  LUG, to present. 
>> I suspect that is not the case
> 
> That's just a suspicion. I've worked with vendors for
> a long time and they are always looking for forums to
> present. I have more than a suspicion (99.9%
> certainty) that it's the vendors approach.

Are you saying this with specific knowledge about this LUG, recently? 
Or generally? It would not be uncommon for vendors to not be looking 
to present to such a small audience, after some amount of travel time.

>> So the idea of acquiring 'pre-approval' ... seems a
>> little self-defeating.
> Not at all.
> 
> In this case I think that Opting in is better than
> opting out.

This isn't relevant - there is no 'opt out' here ... things have to be 
scheduled. For them to be scheduled, somebody has to opt in.

> I wouldn't like the meetings to be hijacked by vendors.

And nobody has suggested they would be. It hasn't been an issue. The 
very nature of the process of getting scheduled prevents things from 
being hijacked. Which is to say, given the people and personalities 
involved, they would not allow a hijacking. If a hijacking happened, 
they not only would be as surprised as anyone else, they would be the 
first ones apologizing for not being more careful in accepting them 
into the schedule. Further, there are lots of others waiting in the 
wings / willing to assist, in such scrutiny.

I have no doubt, for example, you yourself would step up and/or speak 
out, as needed. As you should. There are many with such a mind in the 
LUG. As there should be.

The very nature of the particular group of people around here brings 
to bear a built-in level of policing. And groups of people of like 
bent are likely to attract more of the same.

I have less than zero concern that this particular LUG and group of 
people would ever allow an unacceptable level of commercialization to 
occur consistently. Such attitudes are so entrenched (thankfully), 
that I wonder why we are even talking about it.