Well, this article and the subsequent full report seems to support a couple
of things I've been trying to get across for about 3 years now...

1) no one is sold on the Storage Industry's concept of what "ILM" is (or
what it's intended to achieve), not even their own players.
2) the alliance between ARMA and SNIA doesn't seem to be improving the
market or brand recognition of WHO WE ARE.

From the article:
"...from members of the American Records Management Association (ARMA)..."

From the UCSD Report:
"...Respondents were drawn from the StorageNetworking.org community, from
members of the American Records Management
Association (ARMA),..."

User survey reveals ILM reality
Infostor magazine - Tulsa,OK,USA
http://snipurl.com/qxtt
 ****And here's the link to the full UCSD report:
http://www.storagenetworking.org/pdfs/ILM_Survey_RB06-02.pdf

I understand that the writer may not have understood what the acronym stands
for, but if ANYONE is paying attention, this is the 3rd time an article in
InforStor has mis-identified ARMA and they are tied into SNIA, the
association we're supposed to have a strategic alliance with.  I'd like to
know if when these articles come out, does SOMEBODY at ARMA contact the
magazine and writer and clarify with them WHO ARMA IS???

And what's worse than this being in a trade publication is the incorrect
reference in the UCSD research report!

Larry
-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance