Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.Colorado.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:45:33 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: meeting publicity

[From Bill Powers (930127.0100)]

Cliff Joslyn (930126.1921) --

>Do you want CSG '93 to be open to anyone? Do you want it
>publicized? If so, do you want it publicized with that CFP, or
>with something which solicits applications (assuming a
>restricted attendance)?

Well, it's open to anyone who knows enough about PCT to
understand, or learn to understand, what's going on. We don't
really have any mechanism for excluding people. On the other
hand, if we publicized the meeting, trying to get a lot of
attendees, we would undoubtedly end up with a lot of people to
whom the whole thing is completely strange and new. While we can
handle a few people like this, if they're really interested in
learning, this meeting is not intended to be introductory or
tutorial. It's for people who have been giving a lot of thought
to PCT and who want to talk with each other about it. I think
you're quite aware of how long it takes for even a willing person
to get the basic ideas.

The usual route to attending meetings is for a person to hear
about PCT, read the basic materials, ponder them and find someone
to ask questions, and finally decide that the CSG meeting might
be comprehensible. We've never advertised just to get the numbers
up. Everybody who comes to the meetings, and everybody in the
CSG, is self-selected like the people on CSG-L. Most of the money
from meeting fees goes right out again to pay for the meeting,
with a little left over to subsidize a few students next time.
The dues money goes almost totally for Closed Loop and for
boosting the subsidies. We don't have any big projects or
expenses, and no paid functionaries, meaning that there's no
monetary motive for getting more attendees. We just pay our way
as we go at whatever level is required. Easy come, easy go.

I guess I'm working my way around to saying that I don't really
want to announce the meeting on a lot of other lists. What do
other CSGers think about that? It isn't that we want to keep it a
secret, only that we've had good luck so far simply accepting
people who voluntarily seek us out and want to join in, and
aren't completely ignorant about PCT.

This is a bit difficult because I'm trying to avoid rejecting
anyone who would like to attend while sort of discouraging
attendance by people who may have a completely wrong idea of what
we're interested in (like that guy who posted a request for help
with his traffic problem). I should think that anyone on CSG-L
would certainly know enough to judge whether the meeting would be
worth attending, and would fit right in. You don't have to agree
with us, but it's always better if you understand exactly what
you're disagreeing with. And you don't have to be an expert in
control theory either to be taken seriously.

Let's hear a few other opinions. Then you do what you think is
best.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Andrews, private post:

>a high damping coefficient will make the program unstable
>if the time increments aren't small enough, right?

Right.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU