Yes, I hear the comments, “Greg was a co-founder of Frame and must have a biased view.” Partially correct.

For the record: I severed all connection with Frame in 2010 and any publicity and marketing since then has been a commercial arrangement. My previous connection is now irrelevant, evidenced by the fact that a number of other publications now have media access to the event.

My attendance at Frame this year was as an observer and TimberTrader News paid for the privilege of being connected as a sponsor. I was also delighted to find that I only recognised less than half of the delegates attending.

Now, let me get back to where I was heading. Frame 2015 brought together 15 world-class speakers, four impressive session chairs and attracted over 240 delegates representing in excess of 140 separate commercial operations.

With the theme of “˜Building With Engineered Wood Construction Systems’, Frame was NOT a fabricator or a merchant event.

However, I caught up with many fabricators and merchants who were in attendance. Why? Because they are business people who know the information and techniques presented at Frame will eventually impact their businesses.

Frame was a chance for builders, specifiers, architects, engineers, surveyors and local government authorities to mix and network with timber people, and to help grow their knowledge.

A commercial enterprise? Absolutely.

The last multi-sector national conference organised by the industry was the 14th “˜All Australian Timber Congress’ held in Melbourne in October 1993. It never happened again because our industry underwent massive changes.

When we have a conference that brings together a broad range of industry interests for the promotion of our fabulous product I say “bring it on”.

Frame commenced in 1998. I’m looking forward to the next event in 2016.

In my May column I wrote about the Hoo-Hoo movement in Australia and what I called “the “˜never-never’ world of boring inactivity”.

I had a number of responses to my comments. Two were from people with totally different levels of experience in Hoo-Hoo and I’d like to bring your attention to them.

The first was an email from Doug Howick, a life member of the organisation and “˜Honorary Hoo-Hoo Historian’.

He wrote (in part and slightly edited); “I’m sure you expected some comments on your May “˜First Words’ segment on Hoo-Hoo and maybe you’d have expected criticism from “˜oldies’ like me. Not at all, I’m pleased you had the courage to write it!

“However, I wouldn’t want you to think none of us have noticed the enormous changes resulting in the disappointing differences between the organisation once so impressively effective and the poorly supported organisation of today.

“The answer is NOT for a bunch of “˜oldies’ to come back and start running it again (Melbourne Club tried that), but to show their successors how much effort we needed to put into it to achieve the results we did.”

Doug also supplied impressive documentation and called on the newer members of the industry to have a go at revitalising the organisation.

My other comment came, in a personal contact, from a member who has been in Hoo-Hoo for less that two years. That person commented they have had zero contact with Hoo-Hoo, apart from the club’s request for a subscription renewal.

I rest my case.