FRUSTRATED FRUSTRATED FRUSTRATED

[precisonline]

Well, it appears inevitable that my participation on the Prelude Users Group email list is about to be terminated.  The board, led by Todd Bostwick, has put a vote to the membership that gives two options.  One option will most certainly result in me being banned.  The other option will likely result in my being banned.

After all I've done for that group and its membership, it frustrates me to no end to have Todd and his leadership team painting a target on my chest for no apparent reason.  Do I take this personally?  Dang straight I do.  I've contacted Dave Laansma and Todd Bostwick - both at Hubbard Supply - asking for a face-to-face audience to see if we can work this out but I'm pretty confident they'll decline.  Then again, I'm not entirely certain that it's these specific individuals leading the charge; it very well may be Activant forcing their hand.

Regardless, when this all goes down I may be forced to pursue legal remedy against the individual members of the Board and possibly Activant.  I really hate to exercise that option, but if it leads me to a better understanding of the enemy, the not-so-insignificant legal fees will be well worth the expense.

[nmorgan]

I have asked twice for access to that "official" user's discussion board and been totally ignored.  Hardly the way to treat someone who has used the product and been an enthusiastic supporter for nearly 15 years.  While I certainly don't agree with everything Prelude does, if it wasn't basically (no pun intended) quite good, we would not still be using it after all these years.  I was worried when the Activant merger happened and it is starting to look like my fears were well grounded.  Oh well, 34 days and I won't care what happens.  I'm getting so "short" that I can't see over my shoelaces!

[precisonline]

Well dang man, we're gonna miss you around here!  You'll have to drop by and laugh with (at?) us from time to time, eh?

Based on feedback from Todd and Dave, the general premise of the action by the Board is that consultants are not Prelude users.  I came to this group because for a couple of sites, I am their Prelude support.   No, I do not ship product and I do not take orders for these customers, but as their primary IT support, if I am not a user then no IT people are actual users.

I have this sneaking suspicion that one particularly vocal Activant employee is likely behind this.  It's been a couple of years since he's tried to pick a fight so I guess we're due.  What he really needs to understand is that Activant has always had the power to squelch us.  All they need to do is provide a more responsive, higher quality service at a more reasonable price.  It's not rocket science; give customers what they need when they need it and they'll make the choice that's right for them.

Having written that, and knowing that a few Activant employees watch this list to see if I'm being naughty or nice, am I concerned that they may take the challenge and try to be better, faster, and cheaper?  Not remotely.  If they actually pull it off it'll be a great benefit to the customers.  And until they do, we'll continue being that better, faster, and cheaper option for any site that needs it.  After all, despite what Activant would have people believe, options are a VERY good thing.

[precisonline]

I just had a truly lovely conversation with Jennifer Deavers of the Board.  She explained the impetus of the action was not specifically
against my participation, but rather to try to set the stage for other vendors who have expressed an interest in joining this fine community. I truly enjoyed the conversation and appreciated her taking the time to fill in a number of gaps in my understanding of the situation.

As I explained to Jennifer, having spent the last 15 years with the default title of "consultant" I do understand this industry and could
help the Board define parameters for participation for outside individuals in a way that could be constructive for all parties involved.  I do understand the Board's desire to control the scammy, spammy, and slimy that do exist in business at large, but not everyone with this particular title is of that ilk.  Therefore, guidelines should be established/formalized for a provisional membership not unlike the defacto membership that I have abided by these past couple of years.  My concern is that the measure before you, the voting members, does not define these provisional parameters, and therefore I don't believe it will accomplish much of anything other than maybe
raise some blood pressure, which it has effectively accomplished.

I encourage the Board to reconsider the measure before you to incorporate text defining a more formal provisional membership so that
there is at least a minimal set of guidelines to follow in establishing qualifications for membership rather than allowing it to fall to Board members who for whatever reason might have an axe to grind.  If that is not possible due to the vote on the table, please
allow me to encourage each of you to vote to keep the third party option open, knowing we can double back later and refine the
qualifications for this kind of membership.