Tom, c'mon - he was obviously being funny, and there's equally obviously some level of problem, based on the fact that the OP had looked, and others have echoed that it's not obvious (I couldn't find it trivially, either).
Charles's other point-that the company aspect of SHARE might should be abolished-is an interesting one, which I'd never thought about, to be honest. I can't see the value any more, now that I think on't. The number of multi-attendee companies seems to be low (along with attendance in general). Has this been considered and rejected? That question alone seems like an important one to ask. If not, it should be (considered, not *necessarily* rejected!); if it has, the reasons for rejecting it would be interesting. For all I (and Charles) know, it's part of the SHARE charter and would require ratification by 2/3 of the states to change. .phsiii ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
