Gervas, Thanks very much for this thoughtful and reassuring reply. This is indeed a very interesting discussion group, and I will be glad to continue contributing when and where I can.
Best, Eric --- "Gervas Douglas (gmail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
