Eric, Thanks for this. First of all I personally have no problem with any of your messages to the Group - nor do I have with Keith's or Gregg's, for example. I guess one of my tasks as a moderator is to keep the peace. This does not mean I always have to be anodyne, sweet and gentle, although of course this is my nature.
However, as we are all aware a lot of members of these user groups are very sensitive to what they see as efforts by sales/marketing people to promote/sell their wares. One could say that the offendees are often inchoate proto-Marxists (one member left this Group because he was disgusted at the thought of someone working for commercial gain - I kid you not!) and the offenders are incompetent articulaters of marketing messages. Whatever the reason there is a general convention that militates against what I choose to term "billboarding". My own personal objection to billboarding is that it could cause people to leave the Group unnecessarily, and that it is usually a crass attempt to sell and promote, which has the added vice of being boring! No competent CBSO or CMO worth his/her salt would countenance brazen billboarding. A proto-Marxist techy who understood the sales process and read the message which triggered this dialogue, might well have objected to it. If you read that sentence again you will spot the oxymoronic nature of the first part which ended in the word "process". Part of the problem is that non-sales people have a poor understanding of what professional selling is about. For instance, the fact that listening is more important than talking. The fact that a responsible salesperson should never pressure the wrong solution onto a prospect. Your approach fits into what a good saleman would do because the latter should first go to some trouble to assess a client's real needs before proposing a solution. If the process is done properly, the client ends up with the right solution. If I may so comment, I get the impression that you have an instinctive grasp of how to ensure that the user ends up with the right solution - even if you were not fully aware of this innate quality! Keep up the good work (and thank you for your contributions to the Group), Gervas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Newcomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA Infrastructure > Gervas, > > I have been thinking about how to respond for a while. > It's unfortunately still a misunderstanding. > > Here's how I have been doing vendor-neutral technology > pitches for years: > > -- Describe the problem - in this case architecture > and design comes before technology > -- Describe a solution - in this case SOA > infrastructure mapped to the architectural and design > requirements > -- Give an example that works for any vendor (or at > least multiple vendors) - in this case the products > from IONA being a good potential fit for some of those > requirements > > If I were working for another vendor, I would use that > technology for the example. But in the examples I > give, it could be any number of vendors. > > To me this isn't a sales pitch but a vendor neutral > discussion about technology and requirements, using a > particular vendor's product for an example to help > prove the point. > > Has something changed? Is this not a good way to do a > vendor neutral technology pitch anymore? > > Or is the problem simply that I work for a vendor? > > Thanks, > > Eric > > > --- Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > No apology called for. If I had really objected (as > > some moderators > > would have), I would not have approved your message. > > > > Whilst I appreciate the nobility of your intentions, > > I have to say it > > was a textbook example of a good pitch. Contrary to > > popular myth, one > > of the secrets of effective selling is to actually > > believe in what you > > are selling (and I do not mean in the meretricious > > manner of temporary > > assumption of belief as adopted by certain political > > orators [TB, > > perhaps??]). Perhaps you should use your obviously > > natural talent in a > > deliberately targeted fashion! > > > > Gervas > > > > --- In > > [email protected], > > Eric Newcomer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Gervas, > > > > > > I'm sorry if it seemed like a sales pitch. It > > wasn't > > > my intention. I happen to think our technology is > > a > > > very good fit for some SOA architectures and > > > requirements. > > > > > > From the recent conversations about what's > > appropriate > > > for the discussion group I thought it was ok to > > post > > > messages that were enthusiastic about a particular > > > technology. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. > > > > > > To be clear, the question at the end was not about > > the > > > idea that our technology could be a good fit in > > some > > > SOA architectures, although since it was directly > > > after the last paragraph I could see why someone > > might > > > think it was related only to that. > > > > > > My intention was rather to confirm the thrust of > > the > > > entire message, which was (at least this is what I > > > meant it to be) that the design should be done > > > independently of the vendor or technology choice. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > --- "Gervas Douglas (gmail)" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Putting my moderator's hat on: > > > > > > > > Hmmm. That wasn't so much billboarding as a > > gentle > > > > but deadly sales pitch. > > > > I like the assumptive (how could he possibly say > > > > anything but "yes") close > > > > at the end. Ever thought of moving into sales, > > > > Eric??? > > > > > > > > Have fun! > > > > > > > > Gervas > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Eric Newcomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:35 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] > > Re: > > > > SOA Infrastructure > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Awel, > > > > > > > > > > I would agree 100% with what you are saying, > > and I > > > > > often tell our customers (and anyone else who > > > > might be > > > > > attending one of my talks, such as the one > > next > > > > week > > > > > at the InfoWorld forum in San Fran) that it is > > > > vitally > > > > > important to start with the design and the > > > > > architecture and make the technology choice > > later. > > > > > > > > > > Especially if you are doing SOA it's important > > to > > > > do > > > > > the design first and then see what technology > > maps > > > > > best. We do not suggest anything different. > > > > > > > > > > We are also very happy to identify the areas > > where > > > > we > > > > > can contribute to any such architecture, such > > as > > > > > service enabling legacy applications, or > > > > abstracting > > > > > the messaging layer, if those are important > > > > aspects of > > > > > the architecture (as they are for some of our > > > > > customers). If we don't fit, that's ok too. > > We > > > > are > > > > > not trying to force ourselves into places that > > > > don't > > > > > make sense. > > > > > > > > > > But we do believe strongly that our technology > > is > > > > > good, proven in large scale demanding > > applications > > > > and > > > > > it can be helpful. Not in every case of > > course > > > > but in > > > > > many. > > > > > > > > > > So I think we are in agreement? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > --- Awel Dico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eric; > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a good observation as to how the > > vendors > > > > are > > > > > > approaching the > > > > > > ESB product implementation. That diversity > > may > > > > be > > > > > > positive for the > > > > > > users - choose what best fit to their > > situation. > > > > The > > > > > > reality from > > > > > > your customers (users) perspective is > > different > > > > > > though. Many > > > > > > enterprises do not just go and buy those > > "ESB > > > > > > products". They look > > > > > > at the ESB capabilities as a pattern first - > > at > > > > > > least from the point > > > > > > of view of the enterprise I work for. With > > clear > > > > > > understanding of > > > > > > the capabilities, they map those > > capabilities > > > > with > > > > > > the SOA > > > > > > infrastructure requirement. This is > > important > > > > > > because you may not > > > > > > need ESB at all (XML appliances may do the > > job); > > > > or > > > > > > it is something > > > > > > that you need right away, or it may be > > something > > > > for > > > > > > the future. The > > > > > > enterprise architecture has to come up with > > the > > > > SOA > > > > > > technology > > > > > > infrastructure reference architecture > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > Based on the > > > > > > understanding of the capabilities required > > and > > > > > > enterprise > > > > > > architectural guidelines, they start to > > evaluate > > > > ESB > > > > > > products - may > > > > > > take them for a test drive (Proof-of-concept > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
