I have a whole separate post drafted on the topic of a professional organization. There were clearly people interested in forming one during the roundtable Q&A session. I’m largely skeptical because there already are so many other organizations. (But I would hazard a guess that many ORF attendees are not members of those organizations…) However, if folks can make a compelling case for a unique organization with some good value-adds – I would be one of the first to join.

Now, as for helping with ORF – you haven’t “officially” invited me yet. :-) And to be perfectly clear – my participation would in no way mean that my employer endorses or sponsors the conference. Sponsorship is an entirely separate discussion that might or might not involve me. Inviting me to help is in no way a magic ticket to sponsorship money – I’m just a lowly Lead SDE in a company of 90,000+ people. :-)

My participation in planning or organization would solely be on behalf of myself as an individual. Just like this blog in no way constitutes the opinion of my employer. Everything I have said here about ORF are my comments alone – as an interested observer and attendee. Besides, one of the things I like about ORF is that it is fiercely independent – and it needs to stay that way.

All of that said, I would also hate to be invited to participate in something solely because of my employer. :-) (I’ll also resist the urge to include a Groucho Marx quote here.)

While I might “want” all of that information, I probably won’t get it from the average attendee – and those are the ones from whom I would really want the information.

There are several groups for rules professionals already in existence today; the RuleML (mostly academic and standards guys), BRxG (Business Rules Experts Group), AAAI, IEEE – AI SIG, etc.

One of the goals of ORF is NOT to compete with any other professional rules group but that is NOT a focus either. We try to conduct our business in more of a vacuum such that we do not blatantly “knock off” ideas from other sources – we just don’t pay any attention to them and, therefore, have a “clean room” approach to what we are doing. You cannot be unique by copying what others have done.

Now, AT THE SAME TIME, we have to be aware of other groups and make possible alliances, not something that I personally favor but something that the rest of the group seems to favor. For 2009 we have been approached to co-locate with RuleML in Las Vegas. Whether that is a good idea or not is up for debate. I don’t like Vegas. I prefer Southern France but I can’t afford that. Southern Spain sounds like a good idea to me – warm and affordable. :-)

Now that you have ventured the idea, why don’t we send the document out to those who attended ORF and see if we can elicit any decent responses. I’ll send this form to others in the planning committee and see what they think.

BTW, if you “officially” join ORF as a planner, will that mean that you will “officially” represent Microsoft at ORF and will that mean that Microsoft would agree to help sponsor the costs.

Remember, unlike other groups, sponsorship does NOT guarantee a speaker slot and we do not require speakers to sponsor in any way. Third Pillar and Visual Rules were both sponsors but neither spoke at ORF 2008. Fair Isaac was a speaker as was ILOG loooonnng before they agreed to sponsor. Fair Isaac agreed to be a Diamond sponsor two weeks before ORF 2008 and we got the money after the conference. ILOG in France (not the USA) sponsored at the Bronze AFTER the conference to help cover expenses. Think about and check with “the powers that be” at Microsoft. Thanks,

SDG
jco