As a vendor, I very much agree with your suggestion of having the users 
meet to discuss requirements without having the vendors present. Also, 
having neutral academics there will help crystallize the issues. That 
way we're more likely to get a prioritized set of requirements for the 
whole community to respond to.

Have a great weekend everyone.
Leon

Ratzesberger, Oliver wrote:
> Asilomar sounds great and I would agree on the no vendor part. I'd like to be able to openly discuss peta byte size problems of different technologies without finding myself in arguments with vendors and the fact that they all 'can' do it.
>
> Oliver
>
> Oliver Ratzesberger | Director IMD Architecture & Operations, Site Capacity | [log in to unmask] | skype: fxstein | cell: 408-476-6901 | office: L1.1.104 (Orchard)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Mike Stonebraker <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Fri Jan 25 11:14:13 2008
> Subject: Re: science - db research meeting
>
> Mike Stonebraker wrote:
>   
>> Dave or I can:
>>
>> invite the DB folks
>> deal with Asilomar
>>     
>
> Great!
>
>
>   
>> My strong suggestion:  have everybody pay their own way -- Asilomar will 
>> cost perhaps $500 (all food plus lodgings).  It is too much effort to 
>> get sponsorship for this amount of money.
>>     
>
>
> Ok. I think I will try a little bit, eg. I'll try asking some
> big friends who couldn't help at the time we had the xldb workshop,
> but promised to sponsor our next xldb-type event. I worry
> some people will not attend because of the cost.
> For example, it is unlikely we will convince Dirk to fly
> from Geneva both for this meeting and for the planned
> 2nd xldb workshop. Sponsorship would certainly help.
>
>
>   
>> I strongly recommend "no vendors"
>>     
>
> I strongly agree too, however having said that, it is
> getting harder every day to find true db researchers
> not wearing any vendor hat.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacek
>
>
>
>
>
>