On 25 Jul 2014 15:53:51 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Tom, c'mon - he was obviously being funny, and there's equally obviously >some level of problem, based on the fact that the OP had looked, and others >have echoed that it's not obvious (I couldn't find it trivially, either). > > > >Charles's other point-that the company aspect of SHARE might should be >abolished-is an interesting one, which I'd never thought about, to be >honest. I can't see the value any more, now that I think on't. The number of >multi-attendee companies seems to be low (along with attendance in general). > The main reason for the company requirement is that the attendee is theoretically voting on items of value to IBM customers and as representatives of those customers. When I joined as a company of 1 person, I had an IBM computer and may even have been running OS2 (this was in the 1990's).
Clark Morris, head of the now dormant CFM Technical Programming Services. > >Has this been considered and rejected? That question alone seems like an >important one to ask. If not, it should be (considered, not *necessarily* >rejected!); if it has, the reasons for rejecting it would be interesting. >For all I (and Charles) know, it's part of the SHARE charter and would >require ratification by 2/3 of the states to change. > > > >.phsiii > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
