Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:09:43 -0400
Reply-To: Mike Rhoads <RHOADSM1@WESTAT.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Mike Rhoads <RHOADSM1@WESTAT.COM>
Subject: Re: The SUGI Opening Session
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I pretty much gave up on the opening session a few years back, and in fact
did not go in 2002. (It was the only convenient time I could get a speaker
rehearsal room.) I heard from a couple people that 2002 was a little better
than some of the immediately preceding ones, so I decided to try it again in
Seattle, to my regret.
Like Jack, I don't begrudge SAS the chance to "own" this part of the
conference, but wish they would take better advantage of it in terms of the
interests and orientation of the audience. I had a much better
understanding of the much-vaunted "Intelligence Value Chain" after a couple
of quick 5-minute conversations with developers in the demo area on Monday
that I got out of the opening session.
The one thing I specifically missed this year, and mentioned on my response
to the post-SUGI survey, was having a few highlights from the SASWare Ballot
(i.e. mentioning a couple of key items that were going to get implemented).
But it seems like we have had this discussion over and over, and "they"
still don't get it. So I am not at all optimistic that things will change
much for Montreal. I suspect it will be shorter, but not otherwise better.
From: Jack Hamilton [mailto:JackHamilton@FIRSTHEALTH.COM]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: The SUGI Opening Session
There hasn't been much discussion on the list this year of the SUGI
opening session. Was it non-controversial, or has everyone given up on
it, or what?
Manager, Technical Development
Metrics Department, First Health
West Sacramento, California USA