System iNetwork

As the "Rock Stars" disappear, so will the Common Conference. The dinosaurs that remain with Common will become extinct.

So Chris, can you ask your boss (Mr.Madden) the question: So why weren't some of the premier speakers for the System-i invited???

It would indeed be a shame to lose folks like Jon Paris & Susan Gantner as COMMON presenters. They are great presenters and really know their stuff.


It sounds like a "Catch 22" in part. Declining attendees mean less revenue to pay presenters. However, if you reduce compensation too much, some great presenters don't come. Nowadays, there are other venues available for experts to give their presentations.


I have attended a number of COMMON sessions, and hope to come again some time. Let us hope that COMMON board members continue to try and find workable solutions.

Taking your rock-star analogy one step further: If you went to a big rock concern (think: "Monsters of Rock", "Woodstock", "Lalapalooza") would you be shocked if you learned that the bands weren't being paid to be there? That none of the ticket price you paid went to the bands?

Would you be even further shocked if you learned that the rock stars had to pay (at least part of) the admission price to get into the event? And had to pay their own expenses to travel to your location... not to mention bringing all of their stage equipment, etc, all on their own dime?

How would you feel if these bands spent many hours developing dance routines (or stage shows of some sort) in addition to simply singing? Imagine how many hours of practice and preparation! Would that affect how you feel about them being uncompensated?

Of course, the rock star analogy isn't a perfect fit. We speakers don't have the huge elaborate stage shows of a rock concert. Our expenses are simply airfare, hotel, taxi, and meals. But the point is: The very people that you go to see at COMMON are working very hard to provide this information and are having to pay COMMON out of their pockets to do so.

I grew up in a family of sausage makers who (still today) run a business making sausage. Even as a young boy I was told that it makes sense to pinch pennies, be conservative, and keep costs as low as possible. The grocery industry is very competitive, and we cut corners almost everywhere. There's one area we never cut corners in, however: The materials that go into making the actual sausage. Never, ever, cut corners on that! That will hurt business!

COMMON seems to be breaking this rule. The speakers are one of the conferences biggest draws, and cutting corners on the speakers is going to hurt.

How many attendees do you think people like Jon & Susan draw to this conference? How many of those admission prices would it take to cover their costs? Think about it.

Well said, Scott. Unfortunately I don't think many of the PTB at COMMON will bother to read what you wrote (let alone act on it).



And to think that I was going to ask to go to COMMON next year if our training budget gets reinstated. I guess I should start looking into alternatives. Anyone have a suggestion?

I don't know what the big deal is. A number of true legends have stopped attending COMMON over the years, John Sears several years ago, Jim Sloan just this past year, and many others over the last few decades.

The thing is, in every instance of people leaving, someone else has stepped up and either covered the loss or created exciting new content.

So while it is sad to see old friends leave, I'm sure someone younger, perhaps currently too shy to step on anyone's toes, will step up to the plate and hit a home-run.

I'm an System i advocate but I don't pretend to know COMMON's budgetary woes. I can say that if you want to get people to COMMON you also need vendors other than the standard System i solutions to attend.

More companies like Zend need to be there. Get Redhat, SugarCRM, and the other potential iAMP vendors there. These will run on native i/5 or Linux. Embrace Linux on Power. It not COMMON's core but people will go if they think new and alternate solutions can run on i, whether native i/5 or Linux.

One of the reason Scott Klement is such a valuable resource is he writes and teaches how 'i' can integrate with other technologies, SOAP, Linux, PHP, etc.

Someone could step up and hit a home run, but more likely people are going to say if I want to spend quality time with a Bob Cozzi or Scott Klememt or Susan Gantner and Jon Paris, probably best to go to their indepth technical conferences in addition to or rather than COMMON.

If I were COMMON, I would do the math on how many attendees would cover leading speaker's costs and the likelihood of losing that many or more if those icons of the industry aren't there to see. I would try to make the one conference a year Woodstock every year, not open mic night at House of Blues.

Seems to me the decision should be a no brainer, but ironically an actual no brainer decision was made.

rd

As an academic, I have to say that COMMON is expensive to attend. For academic conferences, the registration fee is typically around $500 and the conference lasts about 2.5 days. COMMON costs at least twice as much.

Let's hope your right Bob, because if there's a strikeout, it won't just be the end of the inning.

John and Jim left on their own terms. Jon and Susan are leaving because of what has happened to speaker compensation.

It's come to my attention that I may not have been clear when I said "COMMON will reimburse speaker expenses, et al, at drastically reduced rates." As I understand it, under the old compensation method, if a speaker delivered enough sessions, COMMON would cover registration, some airfare, and some lodging. Now, COMMON will chip away at the registration fee and cover it after 5 sessions -- but no longer will compensate for airfare or lodging.

--Chris

Paris and Ganter deciding not to attend has less to do with the compensation then it does with the publicity. By snubbing Commons big party look at all the press they received! They couldn’t afford this kind of advertising, and for what, looking at Reno and Indianapolis and saying why bother, there isn’t enough people there to make a difference to our company! Boy did you guys play into their hand.

Having a few big names not attend isn’t Common’s biggest problem. They will be missed, but if Common does not change it’s dead with or without them.

Common needs to look at what it was doing when it was King, 2 conventions, and get back to basics, cut all the cost, cut all the overhead it can, cut the fees, and focus on making a show that has the feel of being the “can’t miss” events of the year. Cut down the size of the rooms, make people stand, have smaller halls, but make them full of people. Get back that old feeling again. Focus on getting young people involved, if you are going to pay someone then pay the kids in collage, they are the future!

Simple economics, the law of supply and demand and the product format named 'COMMON' getting outdated. Also, many other technology platforms, be it Oracle, MS, SAP and others keep developers and the like interested by delivering new functionality and concepts so they are eager and willing to pay a fair price for classes. With IBM's lackluster (lack of?) enhancements of the RPG technology platform, the material produced each release only fills a few pages in a PDF manual or a half an hour of video on the internet.

I like Robert's point about "... getting young people involved ... pay the kids in college, they are the future!"


Academic initiatives are long term objectives and critical to the whole community. For these initiatives, we need to think long term (at least the next 2-3 years) and not the financial figures for the next quarter. Academic initiatives are the easiest to cut during difficult times but their removal will come back to haunt the community very soon and stifle future growth. Besides, faculty members that leave the program will never come back – once bitten, twice shy. Further, companies need to put the money where their mouths are -- simply preaching does not work :-)


Regarding the future of COMMON, my 2-cent is that COMMON needs to expand its coverage to fill the presentation rooms and hotel rooms. Like it or not, it has to be related to Power Systems at this point in time – simply focusing on IBM i is not going to work and has no future. Because of the economic downturn, a stimulus package from IBM and/or COMMON may be needed to stimulate the attendance at COMMON.

Robert, I could say what you said, but I'm glad you did.

As to the other points by other folks, COMMON is a victim of IBM volunteers. Certainly the folks in Rochester who volunteer are extremely valuable and contribute to the cause, blindly in some case, without asking for anything in return.

However, the rest of IBM, they really seem to like to spend OPM (other people's money). Its a curse of working for IBM (outside of Rochester), you get used to being reimbursed for expenses that many other Fortune 500 companies (other than the Financial industry, apparently) would cover.

It gets back to the Do you need a $500 Million Space Shuttle Launch to get a $5000 toilet into space?

They year before I was President of COMMON the budget for COMMON Opening Session was $140,000. Just for Opening!

As President I told them to cut that to $5000. In San Diego in 2000, the budget for Opening was about $30,000. Not the $5000 that I wanted, but I cut over $100,000 from that single event alone.

As income shrinks, you you can't keep using the Convention Centers and $200/night hotels.

You also have to learn to say "no". There is no reason to have 12 different Speakers giving the same RPG or Java session simply due to politics.

With 2 or 3 more speakers not going to Orlando, we'll only have 9 or 10 similar sessions on RPG going on. Now we just need to get rid of 7 or 8 more of them and COMMON will be doing things right.

"It seems as if he'll still make the COMMON conference, but he'll be speaking much less than previously, and his day-job company will likely be paying the bills."

In case some are wondering where I will be focusing my not-preparing-for-as-many-sessions-at-COMMON time, I am actively putting together a new open source solution titled "RPGUI" (aka RPG User Interface). Yes, a boring name, but the concept is to put together a bunch of different frameworks that allow RPG to be extended out to a modern interface. My first version of the free and open source tool is set to be published in IBMSystemsMag.com's December issue and focuses on RPG communicating with the ExtJS in the browser using Mihael Schmidts open source JSON tool (www.rpgnextgen.com). The next attempt will probably be talking to a Java thin client, and I want to also do an implementation of it talk to Adobe Flex/Flash.

Giddy up!
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com/blog

Based on the postings and comments above, it may be worthwhile for COMMON to consider making the conference appealing and attractive to Senior Business Executives. Few reasons:


(i) We need to expose and educate business executives and managers about Power Systems and IBM i because they are the ones that typically make the final decisions and sign the checks.


(ii) Having business decision makers at COMMON will make COMMON attractive to many companies that are there to sell and promote products, and to many consultants that are there to market their services.


(iii) If Senior Business Executives attend COMMON, they are likely to fund more subordinates to COMMON.

In short, I think COMMON should be more than a venue for technical training and gathering place for techies. COMMON should also be a place to educate and expose business executives and managers to Power Systems and IBM i.


The time has changed. Youngsters are growing up with technical gadgets and are not phobia to technologies. And many business executives and managers are technically savvy yuppies. These business executives and managers, unlike their predecessors, are interested and keen to be intimately involved in IT investments, purchases, and operations.

If IBM doesn't foot the bill for its own system (IBM i/iManifest), why should Common foot the bill for its own sessions?

"As income shrinks, you you can't keep using the Convention Centers and $200/night hotels."

I here that one Bob. COMMON made statements (at the meeting of the members) that they were planning to do that. However the last I checked, the price of a room is still above the $200 (US) mark. The conference is still planned for a large convention center. I know that conferences are booked well in advance, but when COMMON is facing the kind of situation they are in now, they need to adapt quickly. Would not it have made sense to find a less expensive venue and use the savings to make sure the "ingredients" of the conference are top-notch? I've enjoyed presentations by the big names and lesser known individuals. But the big names got their big names because they've got the combination of knowledge, experience, insight, and speaking ability to put together a truly worth-while session.

The crew of the Titanic saw the icebergs ahead, but they couldn't do anything about it--the ship took too long to try and turn. Only time will tell if COMMON's rudder is big enough to turn it before it's too late. I won't be attending COMMON next spring, but I still believe a conference like COMMON could benefit many people's careers and the organizations for which they work.

Michael and others,

As I understand it, based on a reliable source, the COMMON BOD wishes they could have been in less expensive facilities for the past conference and this up and coming one, but because of the size of the expo and number of attendees they are forced to book multiple years in advance with these venues. So I can see their plight. How many companies were able to plan for the current economic conditions are are currently facing? - not many.

As I understand it they have cut their staff by around 70%, so they are actively cutting fat. Obviously it would be better if they would just proclaim their plight to the community so we can empathize instead of pointing our finger and saying "you're screwing us speakers over!".

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

Cutting cost is certainly needed. Nevertheless, equally, if not more, important is to grow the participant base. Cutting cost is like playing defense in a football game. A team will never win the game simply playing defense. As one saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. It appears that the IBM i base is either stagnant or growing slowly (at least at the moment). For COMMON to restore its past glory, it needs to be attractive and appealing to new groups of people -- AIX users (a huge base), LINUX users (a growing group), business executives and managers (a small but very critical and vital group). At least 30-50% (increasing slowly each year) of the sessions should be devoted to AIX. And COMMON should be marketed heavily to AIX community. We have the IT Executive Conference associated with COMMON. There is no reason not to have a Business Executive Conference as part of COMMON. The Business Executive Conference would be an excellent venue for IBM and other companies to market, promote, and sell their products. COMMON needs to move beyond simply be a venue to get technical training and briefing. More importantly, COMMON should also be a place where deals are made and contracts are signed. For the latter to happen, COMMON needs to be appealing and relevant to senior business and IT executives. COMMON needs to be an event where the CIOs and CEOs have to attend annually rather than a venue for CIOs to send their junior level personnel for training.

I heard that "we have to book so many years in advance" line since 1984 (when I first started paying attention to the cost of COMMON, which as the first one I had to pay for out of my pocket).

There has always been 3 major factors that play into the COMMON Board's decision making process:

1. Stupidity


2. Vanity


3. OPM (other people's money)

Stupidity - I can't tell you the number of times assumption logic and specious reasoning have played into the decision process.

"We can't do that because IBM won't like it." or "Other groups are having success with smaller events, so we should delete one major conference per year, and add a bunch of smaller events."

This is like G.E. deciding they can make more money by not making Jet Enginees (they're too big) and making Toasters is a more profitable way to go. No research, no facts, just assumptions based on specious reasoning.

Vanity - Some of the Board think they've become Rockstars simply by being on the board. Some actually believe that whatever they say is the the true and accurate reality of a situation--often they glanced at U.S.A. Today in the morning before a Board meeting and mock a headline or two so as to sound as if they know what they're talking about.

OPM - If you know me, you know I think this is one of the biggest flaws of the United States--electing people to spend Other Peoples Money. When its not your actual money, it doesn't seem real. $7 million is a lot of money--how could we ever spend all that? But to a company $7 million is small potatoes. You take some very goofball risks with OPM simply because everything is from a personal perspective (geeze, I only have $648 in my checking account, so $7 million is huge!) Sure we can spend $140,000 on the Opening Session A/V and Room Rent. But we'll cut out Speak reimbursements. Just, in a word, dumb.

Having said all that...

I think if you go back to when there were actual volunteers working for COMMON who where "volunteering" not expecting to have expenses paid by COMMON, that you find out where the problem began.

IBMer's don't get paid/reimbursed by COMMON, they never had. IBM pays their salaries, just like your employer (typically) pays your salary when you're at COMMON.

But if you leave IBM and magically become a professional speaker, in order to keep your name out in front of your audience, you need to go to COMMON.

But to do that, you have to (A) pay your own way like ever other attendee, or (B) Become a speaker and try to get reimbursed

Apparently, just like a kid out of college whose parents no longer send them money, when you leave IBM, you're shocked that not everyone wants to pay for your time, and your IBM-style expenses. Okay, I get that, but just like that college kid, its time to grow up and be frugal when times are tough.

There was a time when people used to "fight" to get a slot at speaking at COMMON--for doing a session that an IBMer would normally present--I know, I was one of those kids. There is no reason, today, to have more than 4 paid speakers at a conference the size of COMMON, and if it gets any smaller, perhaps 1 or 2 is the right size. Everything else can be given by volunteers, customs who really want to contribute, vs those who are getting great "Branding Opportunities" by presenting at COMMON and having COMMON spend Other People's Money reimbursing their entire trip.

This going to hurt... but I have to agree with Cozzi .
Newbees don't know COMMON's roots, some old timers seem to have developed Alzheimer's.
COMMON was not birthed on "rock stars", COMMON birthed the "rock stars". Of which Cozzi is one, as are Jon and Susan. The rock stars didn't make COMMON famous, COMMON made them famous.
COMMON was not about VOLUNTEERS getting paid, it was about us nerds in the trenches, sharing and learning from each other. It's roots are in networking, not rock concerts.
It was about young idiots like Cozzi and I and others, hopping in fountains in every city, giggling, blowing off steam, reducing the stress of our jobs and sharing jokes no outsider could understand. And we learned from each other while we did it.
It was about volunteering because it looked like FUN, not because you would get a free ride. You volunteered because you were coming anyway, you did not volunteer so you could afford to come.
It was about providing a stage for those with stage fright so they could learn in a friendly environment how to hone their management and presentation skills, not about getting paid to stand on that stage, or about paying to JUST sit in the audience.
I'd love to see any of the stars do a cost justification that would adequately define what their careers owe to the existence of COMMON's stage.
If I were still there, I'd vote to give the stars a cameo appearance, gratis, buy them dinner for Pete's sake! Supper Star sessions, two a day, and let the newbees develop their skills in all other sessions.
Wouldn't hurt the stars to show up one day a year and visit to repay the debt they owe to the organization that launched their careers. Asking them to do 4-5-6 sessions limits the opportunity for others to achieve such fame. COMMON volunteering, in speaking or management roles was an OJT opportunity, not a privilege or a cost saving mechanism.
COMMON can (a) go back to it's roots (b) stay as it is and die, or (c) become something completely different. It can do both A & C in different venues, whatever... the potential is boundless..
What may be lacking is will to buckle down and fix it instead of sling'n arrows at it from a far.
Nora Craig

As a long time Common volunteer and speaker (32 consecutive conferences), I am saddened by Common’s decision to reduce speaker re-imbursement. Notice I did not say compensation, as it is not. It is merely a reduction of the price speakers pay to give for free what they are usually paid to do.

Not every speaker is an ex-IBM’er doing the professional speaking circuit. Some, like me, are independent consultants on a budget. The reason I stopped going and speaking at Common was simply because I couldn’t afford it anymore, even with the free registration.

Going through this thread, I have read many comments about the “good ‘ol days” when everyone was a volunteer and no one was re-imbursed for anything. That must have been before my time, because when I started giving sessions at Common, speakers were second class citizens. At that time, the sessions were scheduled by groups called Projects. Each project has a manager, an assistant and an IBM liaison. Even if the Project scheduled a mere five sessions, the Manager and the Assistant both received free registration but the speaker who presented those five sessions received zip. He or she was not even considered a volunteer and therefore was not even invited to the volunteer appreciation dinner.

It was a long up-hill struggle to get any re-imbursement for speakers at all.

I doubt there is any question in anyone’s mind, the Conference is the sessions. In all my years of presenting at Common, I can honestly say I doubt I increased my business by a single client or made a nickel I would not have made anyway. However, even with free registration, once that finally kicked in, I eventually had to stop coming because it had not been cost justified for a very long time.

Common will miss Jon and Susan and in the present economic situation can ill afford to lose headliners. But also, do not forget the very good, very knowledgeable non-headliners who actually represent the bulk of the non-IBM sessions who were on a shoe-string budget before the reduction. How many of them will be lost?

It was mentioned as the older speakers leave new “rising stars” take their place. This is true. But it generally takes the talented but not professional speaker years of practice to present sessions of true Common caliber. I know, been there done that. It wasn’t easy.

I wish Jon and Susan the best and I hope it all works out for Common even though I think this was bad decision.

>What may be lacking is will to buckle down and fix it instead of sling'n arrows at it from a far.

Nora, I think it is GREAT that you are taking the risk of being a COMMON leader and actually speaking your opinion - that is something the rest of us can actually work with to work through our gripes. I hope the new COMMON president starts doing the same (I forget his name).

Anyways, how can we, as the COMMON community, move from shooting arrows from afar to getting closer and doing close proximity face slaps that COMMON can directly respond to? Maybe I am reading the wrong blogs, but since all of this came down I am not seeing COMMON really trying to work through it with existing speakers. Instead it has been COMMON basically stating "we are now going to mandate that you donate 100% of your time" instead of asking us how to work through their financial issues hand-in-hand.

Anyone from the COMMON board of directors care to not only do a press release but also do it in an area where follow-up conversation can happen where COMMON will take the time to answer the hard/unfair/biased/selfish/in-depth questions that some of us may have?

I agree that some might owe COMMON some dues because they received good "marketing" by being allowed to speak. For me that isn't the case. My thanks go to Scott Klement for allowing me to write in his ClubTechTips in my early writing days, and to RPG&DB2 Summit/RPGWorld/user groups/Penton/IBMSystemsMag.com who took the risk of having a young, unpolished, kid speak/write at their conferences/trade rags. I have only been at this for a few years, so I don't have near the experience of others that can claim 32 years of service, but I thought it would be good for COMMON to hear how some of the next generation views them as.

I am trying not to sound negative of COMMON, but COMMON needs to realize that they aren't as much the cats meow as they were 10 years ago where it was THEE place to start a consulting career to get your name out. The internet has changed the game. Speaking at COMMON needs to be a partnership instead of COMMON thinking they are doing speakers a favor by letting them speak - reeks of arrogance (though I should talk :-)

Anyways, take my comments for what their worth: $0.02

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

There are more ways to “reimburse” the speakers other than cash. COMMON organizers need to make COMMON a worthwhile venue for potential speakers to compete for the speaking slots -- e.g., business opportunities, consulting opportunities, visibility, brand names, career advancements, etc. For that to happen, COMMON needs to work on the audience base. COMMON needs participants that are decision makers who have budgets to spend and authority to sign checks. If COMMON is simply a place to train end users and entry level programmers, it will be mostly a cost for the speakers (especially seasoned speakers and well-known consultants). Once COMMON manages to attract senior business and IT executives, and make COMMON a place for business deals, the problem of reimbursing speakers will be solved and IBM senior executives will be flocking to COMMON in doves. At that point, it may even be worthwhile for the speakers to pay COMMON to speak at COMMON.