Apachecon once again
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi David:
This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand the dynamics of the conference and the ASF. Regards, Ruth David E Jones wrote: > Ruth, > > Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". > > You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization". > > I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a statement that you said I made. > > Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? > > -David > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > >> Hello David: >> >> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. >> >> Regards, >> Ruth >> >> David E Jones wrote: >> >>> Ruth, >>> >>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi Scott: >>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>> >>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. >>>> >>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>> Regards, >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> HotWax Media >>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>> >>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was going on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training either. >>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > > |
|
perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply?
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi David: > This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not > meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand the > dynamics of the conference and the ASF. > > Regards, > Ruth > > David E Jones wrote: > > Ruth, > > > > Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". > > > > You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization". > > > > I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a statement that you said I made. > > > > Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? > > > > -David > > > > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > > > > >> Hello David: > >> > >> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ruth > >> > >> David E Jones wrote: > >> > >>> Ruth, > >>> > >>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Scott: > >>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. > >>>> > >>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Ruth > >>>> > >>>> Scott Gray wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> Scott > >>>>> > >>>>> HotWax Media > >>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi David: > >>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Ruth > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was going on. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -David > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Ean: > >>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> Ruth > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training either. > >>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. |
|
|
Your point?
I asked for clarification. I got it. End of story. Thanks for helping me out Hans. And thanks for making this mailing list a friendlier place for all of us out here who are not privy to all the secrets of those on the PMC. Regards, Ruth Hans Bakker wrote: > perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply? > > On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > >> Hi David: >> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not >> meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand the >> dynamics of the conference and the ASF. >> >> Regards, >> Ruth >> >> David E Jones wrote: >> >>> Ruth, >>> >>> Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". >>> >>> You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization". >>> >>> I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a statement that you said I made. >>> >>> Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello David: >>>> >>>> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ruth, >>>>> >>>>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Scott: >>>>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was going on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training either. >>>>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> |
|
|
Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Your point? > I asked for clarification. I got it. End of story. > Thanks for helping me out Hans. And thanks for making this mailing > list a friendlier place for all of us out here who are not privy to > all the secrets of those on the PMC. Past or present. > Regards, > Ruth > > Hans Bakker wrote: >> perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply? >> >> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >>> Hi David: >>> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't >>> not meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand >>> the dynamics of the conference and the ASF. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ruth >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Ruth, >>>> >>>> Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort >>>> with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". >>>> >>>> You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon >>>> organization is a for profit organization". >>>> >>>> I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I >>>> didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a >>>> statement that you said I made. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hello David: >>>>> >>>>> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon >>>>> is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>> >>>>>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Scott: >>>>>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon >>>>>>> organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure >>>>>>> that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my >>>>>>> decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE >>>>>>> difference between an organization taking in more money than >>>>>>> expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from >>>>>>>> ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. >>>>>>>> This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used >>>>>>>> for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an >>>>>>>>> organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User >>>>>>>>> Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies >>>>>>>>> that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is >>>>>>>>> documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, >>>>>>>>> organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the >>>>>>>>>> case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds >>>>>>>>>> going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF >>>>>>>>>> gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any >>>>>>>>>> money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest >>>>>>>>>> some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also >>>>>>>>>> benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), >>>>>>>>>> but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are >>>>>>>>>> describing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the >>>>>>>>>> OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are >>>>>>>>>> already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous >>>>>>>>>> investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of >>>>>>>>>> which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but >>>>>>>>>> the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused >>>>>>>>>> them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people >>>>>>>>>> attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were >>>>>>>>>> far more developers and contributors attending than users, >>>>>>>>>> and typically the users were people who happened to live >>>>>>>>>> close to the conference and who attended to check out what >>>>>>>>>> was going on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet >>>>>>>>>> their needs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and >>>>>>>>>>> using the immense resources available to the Foundation to >>>>>>>>>>> do that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and >>>>>>>>>>> (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is >>>>>>>>>>> for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This >>>>>>>>>>> should be the place where we showcase our wares and not >>>>>>>>>>> "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and >>>>>>>>>>>> done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of >>>>>>>>>>>> DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from >>>>>>>>>>>> countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance >>>>>>>>>>>> impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or >>>>>>>>>>>> we may come to some agreement about how we would share >>>>>>>>>>>> those expenses for speakers with something especially >>>>>>>>>>>> important to contribute. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a >>>>>>>>>>>> lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my >>>>>>>>>>>> mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in >>>>>>>>>>>> all kinds of places. We can think of it as a >>>>>>>>>>>> collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was >>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in >>>>>>>>>>>>> previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do >>>>>>>>>>>>> training either. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time >>>>>>>>>>>>> and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope >>>>>>>>>>>>> someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the >>>>>>>>>>>>> for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 >>>>>>>>>>>>> because people were paying a lot to attend (both the >>>>>>>>>>>>> training and the conference) and yet none of the money >>>>>>>>>>>>> (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in >>>>>>>>>>>>> some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended >>>>>>>>>>>>> and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth >>>>>>>>>>>>> what they paid for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only >>>>>>>>>>>>> one that ended up this way. In another conference I did >>>>>>>>>>>>> some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing >>>>>>>>>>>>> it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the training with the funds for the conference, and so >>>>>>>>>>>>> basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went >>>>>>>>>>>>> to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens >>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me >>>>>>>>>>>>> look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good >>>>>>>>>>>>> at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that >>>>>>>>>>>>> even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and >>>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>> way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will >>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit from their contributions and they should certainly >>>>>>>>>>>>> step up and go for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's really just human nature that expectations of >>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations >>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
You're right to be suspicious Ruth. The traffic volume on the private list is at least twice the volume on the dev list. Also, you should have seen the thread about you we had a couple of weeks ago! Seriously though... what are you talking about? There seems to be some sort of implied issue here and I don't get it. -David On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Your point? > I asked for clarification. I got it. End of story. > Thanks for helping me out Hans. And thanks for making this mailing list a friendlier place for all of us out here who are not privy to all the secrets of those on the PMC. > Regards, > Ruth > > Hans Bakker wrote: >> perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply? >> >> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >>> Hi David: >>> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand the dynamics of the conference and the ASF. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ruth >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Ruth, >>>> >>>> Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". >>>> >>>> You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization". >>>> >>>> I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a statement that you said I made. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hello David: >>>>> >>>>> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>> >>>>>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Scott: >>>>>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was going on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training either. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> |
|
|
David:
I think this thread is just about dead. Regardless of what others think, I found ambiguity in your original statement concerning the profit motive of the ApacheCon organization. I now understand what you said. No more ambiguities. Thanks for that clarification. Regards, Ruth David E Jones wrote: > You're right to be suspicious Ruth. The traffic volume on the private list is at least twice the volume on the dev list. Also, you should have seen the thread about you we had a couple of weeks ago! > > Seriously though... what are you talking about? There seems to be some sort of implied issue here and I don't get it. > > -David > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > >> Your point? >> I asked for clarification. I got it. End of story. >> Thanks for helping me out Hans. And thanks for making this mailing list a friendlier place for all of us out here who are not privy to all the secrets of those on the PMC. >> Regards, >> Ruth >> >> Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply? >>> >>> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi David: >>>> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand the dynamics of the conference and the ASF. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ruth, >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". >>>>> >>>>> You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization". >>>>> >>>>> I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a statement that you said I made. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hello David: >>>>>> >>>>>> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Scott: >>>>>>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was going on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > |
Administrator
|
It's better than TV :p
Jacques From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]> > David: > I think this thread is just about dead. > Regardless of what others think, I found ambiguity in your original statement concerning the profit motive of the ApacheCon > organization. I now understand what you said. No more ambiguities. Thanks for that clarification. > Regards, > Ruth > > David E Jones wrote: >> You're right to be suspicious Ruth. The traffic volume on the private list is at least twice the volume on the dev list. Also, >> you should have seen the thread about you we had a couple of weeks ago! >> >> Seriously though... what are you talking about? There seems to be some sort of implied issue here and I don't get it. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>> Your point? >>> I asked for clarification. I got it. End of story. >>> Thanks for helping me out Hans. And thanks for making this mailing list a friendlier place for all of us out here who are not >>> privy to all the secrets of those on the PMC. >>> Regards, >>> Ruth >>> >>> Hans Bakker wrote: >>> >>>> perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply? >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi David: >>>>> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to >>>>> understand the dynamics of the conference and the ASF. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization". >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a >>>>>> statement that you said I made. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello David: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get confrontational. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Scott: >>>>>>>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for profit organization. I want to make sure that >>>>>>>>> I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a HUGE >>>>>>>>> difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" >>>>>>>>> endeavor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. >>>>>>>>>> This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>>>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies >>>>>>>>>>> that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is >>>>>>>>>>> documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF >>>>>>>>>>>> gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did >>>>>>>>>>>> invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for >>>>>>>>>>>> it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are >>>>>>>>>>>> already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which >>>>>>>>>>>> was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them >>>>>>>>>>>> to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, >>>>>>>>>>>> and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was >>>>>>>>>>>> going on. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is >>>>>>>>>>>>> for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not >>>>>>>>>>>>> "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> training either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > |
|
|
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> It's better than TV :p Like that is difficult. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
True!
Jacques Le Roux wrote: > It's better than TV :p > > Jacques > > From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]> >> David: >> I think this thread is just about dead. >> Regardless of what others think, I found ambiguity in your original >> statement concerning the profit motive of the ApacheCon organization. >> I now understand what you said. No more ambiguities. Thanks for that >> clarification. >> Regards, >> Ruth >> >> David E Jones wrote: >>> You're right to be suspicious Ruth. The traffic volume on the >>> private list is at least twice the volume on the dev list. Also, you >>> should have seen the thread about you we had a couple of weeks ago! >>> >>> Seriously though... what are you talking about? There seems to be >>> some sort of implied issue here and I don't get it. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Your point? >>>> I asked for clarification. I got it. End of story. >>>> Thanks for helping me out Hans. And thanks for making this mailing >>>> list a friendlier place for all of us out here who are not privy to >>>> all the secrets of those on the PMC. >>>> Regards, >>>> Ruth >>>> >>>> Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>>> perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply? >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't >>>>>> not meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to >>>>>> understand the dynamics of the conference and the ASF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ruth >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit >>>>>>> effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon >>>>>>> organization is a for profit organization". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I >>>>>>> didn't make. You're the one who confronted me to challenge a >>>>>>> statement that you said I made. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello David: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I simply would like clarification on your statement: >>>>>>>> "ApacheCon is a for profit effort." No need to get >>>>>>>> confrontational. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ruth, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I challenge you to quote where I said that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Scott: >>>>>>>>>> Thanks that has been my understanding. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon >>>>>>>>>> organization is a for profit organization. I want to make >>>>>>>>>> sure that I'm operating under the correct assumptions when I >>>>>>>>>> make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a >>>>>>>>>> HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money >>>>>>>>>> than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" >>>>>>>>>> endeavor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from >>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. >>>>>>>>>>> This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be >>>>>>>>>>> used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David: >>>>>>>>>>>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an >>>>>>>>>>>> organization with a "for profit" tax status? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User >>>>>>>>>>>> Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies >>>>>>>>>>>> that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>> organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is >>>>>>>>>>>> documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, >>>>>>>>>>>> organization, I'd like to know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not >>>>>>>>>>>>> the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds >>>>>>>>>>>>> going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally >>>>>>>>>>>>> invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the >>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they >>>>>>>>>>>>> had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz events have been people who already know about and >>>>>>>>>>>>> are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous >>>>>>>>>>>>> investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much >>>>>>>>>>>>> of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there >>>>>>>>>>>>> were far more developers and contributors attending than >>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and typically the users were people who happened to >>>>>>>>>>>>> live close to the conference and who attended to check out >>>>>>>>>>>>> what was going on. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better >>>>>>>>>>>>> meet their needs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the immense resources available to the Foundation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should be the place where we showcase our wares and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "vacation with a purpose". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from countries where the currency exchange rates make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would share those expenses for speakers with something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially important to contribute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options like that in all kinds of places. We can think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to speak or do training either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because people were paying a lot to attend (both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> training and the conference) and yet none of the money >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who attended and who were not satisfied that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they got was worth what they paid for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one that ended up this way. In another conference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did some pre-conference training and made almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing doing it because the conference organizers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference, and so basically I offered training and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and they should certainly step up and go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text. I think it's really just human nature that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> It's better than TV :p > > Like that is difficult. Some humor never hurt Jacques |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
Hahahaha
Oh, I almost forgot this is a dev list. 在 2010-04-02五的 14:53 -0400，Ruth Hoffman写道： > Hi Scott: > Thanks that has been my understanding. > > However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a > for profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under > the correct assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this > conference. There is a HUGE difference between an organization taking in > more money than expenses and an organization operating as a "for profit" > endeavor. > > I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. > Regards, > Ruth > > Scott Gray wrote: > > Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the foundation. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > HotWax Media > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > > > > >> Hi David: > >> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a "for profit" tax status? > >> > >> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, organization, I'd like to know. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ruth > >> > >> David E Jones wrote: > >> > >>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. > >>> > >>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. > >>> > >>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending sessions were presenters at other sessions. > >>> > >>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended to check out what was going on. > >>> > >>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Ean: > >>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. > >>>> > >>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. > >>>> > >>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". > >>>> > >>>> Just my 2 cents. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Ruth > >>>> > >>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. > >>>>> > >>>>> David E Jones wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training either. > >>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this happens a lot with conferences. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and they should certainly step up and go for it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. > > ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the > immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. I disagree. ApacheCon will never be the primary way people discover and get excited about OFBiz. The Internet will always blow a physical meeting out of the water when it comes to getting the word out. To support my theory, let's examine the Google Trends plot for "OFBiz": http://www.google.com/trends?q=ofbiz&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 To me, this graph makes crystal clear the fact that making a big splash with a formal release gets people's attention. If you look at event "C" (OFBiz 09.04) you can see that it dwarfs the impact of event "A" (ApacheCon). Its also clear to me that we've been relatively flat in popularity (neither gaining nor losing) as opposed to say: oscommerce - http://www.google.com/trends?q=oscommerce&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 openbravo - http://www.google.com/trends?q=openbravo&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 or magento - http://www.google.com/trends?q=magento&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 Magento is a bona-fide phenomena and we really need to be picking on them. We kick their butt feature-wise, even at their $12,000 a year "enterprise" level. > IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting > smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. > Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we > showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". I've been to a *lot* of developer oriented conferences over the years and I can tell you with some confidence that they are not a good place for finding new customers or bringing around novice users. Even cheap conferences are well out of the price range of most casual adopters. The important and transformative phenomena that can happen is great, densely packed technical discussion that achieves in hours what might take weeks on a mailing list. The other important thing I've seen happen is a "dev jam" where major new features are sketched up or long standing bugs are squashed. Having all the major players sitting together in the same room for 8 to 10 hours does have an effect that is hard to replicate otherwise. Done right, this kind of developer oriented conference can definitely have a positive effect on new but technically proficient users. For the real non-technical newbie they are just going to be too far behind to get anything valuable out of such an event. They either need a turn-key solution with how-to videos on the net or an intensive training session. Business process discussions might be another matter and that would be a very interesting thing for us to consider adding to a conference. By that I mean bringing in subject matter experts in materials handling, accounting and customer service from serious OFBiz users and talking about the processes at a high level that the code supports. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [hidden email] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com |
|
|
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I've been to a *lot* of developer oriented conferences over the years > and I can tell you with some confidence that they are not a good place > for finding new customers or bringing around novice users. Even cheap > conferences are well out of the price range of most casual adopters. The > important and transformative phenomena that can happen is great, densely > packed technical discussion that achieves in hours what might take weeks > on a mailing list. The other important thing I've seen happen is a "dev > jam" where major new features are sketched up or long standing bugs are > squashed. Having all the major players sitting together in the same room > for 8 to 10 hours does have an effect that is hard to replicate otherwise. That describes perfectly my experience with the 2007 Developers Conference. I would like to see that happen again soon. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ean Schuessler
Hi Ean:
Interesting statistics. Thanks for the research. BTW, can you get stats on specific daily or weekly OFBiz download volumes? If so, how could I get them? Your points about Magento are well founded and if I had access to the marketing muscle that ASF had, I'd start working that angle straight away. Which brings me back to my main point which I still believe is still lost on this group. Let me put this another way: There is no other venue for OFBiz to get connected with the marketing muscle that ASF has to offer. I don't really care if ApacheCon is characterized as a developer's conference. Its the only thing going right now...So, given that, why not take advantage of it? I'm willing to present as many as 3 user level presentations. Could anyone on the OFBiz PMC take the initiative and tell the conference coordinators that OFBiz wants time and space to present? Please, lets get on with it instead of splitting hairs over the purpose of the conference Regards, Ruth Ean Schuessler wrote: > Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >> >> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the >> immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. > I disagree. ApacheCon will never be the primary way people discover > and get excited about OFBiz. The Internet will always blow a physical > meeting out of the water when it comes to getting the word out. To > support my theory, let's examine the Google Trends plot for "OFBiz": > > http://www.google.com/trends?q=ofbiz&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 > > To me, this graph makes crystal clear the fact that making a big > splash with a formal release gets people's attention. If you look at > event "C" (OFBiz 09.04) you can see that it dwarfs the impact of event > "A" (ApacheCon). Its also clear to me that we've been relatively flat > in popularity (neither gaining nor losing) as opposed to say: > > oscommerce - > http://www.google.com/trends?q=oscommerce&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 > openbravo - > http://www.google.com/trends?q=openbravo&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 > or > magento - > http://www.google.com/trends?q=magento&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 > > Magento is a bona-fide phenomena and we really need to be picking on > them. We kick their butt feature-wise, even at their $12,000 a year > "enterprise" level. >> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting >> smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. >> Or rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we >> showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". > I've been to a *lot* of developer oriented conferences over the years > and I can tell you with some confidence that they are not a good place > for finding new customers or bringing around novice users. Even cheap > conferences are well out of the price range of most casual adopters. > The important and transformative phenomena that can happen is great, > densely packed technical discussion that achieves in hours what might > take weeks on a mailing list. The other important thing I've seen > happen is a "dev jam" where major new features are sketched up or long > standing bugs are squashed. Having all the major players sitting > together in the same room for 8 to 10 hours does have an effect that > is hard to replicate otherwise. > > Done right, this kind of developer oriented conference can definitely > have a positive effect on new but technically proficient users. For > the real non-technical newbie they are just going to be too far behind > to get anything valuable out of such an event. They either need a > turn-key solution with how-to videos on the net or an intensive > training session. > > Business process discussions might be another matter and that would be > a very interesting thing for us to consider adding to a conference. By > that I mean bringing in subject matter experts in materials handling, > accounting and customer service from serious OFBiz users and talking > about the processes at a high level that the code supports. > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |