Apachecon once again
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi all,
so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), the conference call is over at the end of the month. so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz |
|
In the last thread about this it sounded like people were more interested in doing a separate conference that would be less expensive to attend. Either way, I haven't heard anything about anyone pushing for any sort of conference. Has anyone else heard anything, or is anyone else interested in pushing this along? -David On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > Hi all, > > so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here > (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), the conference call is over at the end of the month. > > so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? > > Cheers, > > -- > Erwan de FERRIERES > www.nereide.biz |
|
|
I would agree, it is interesting to have a "for profit" event on free or
open software, it is kinda self defeating. I understand if they were just covering costs, but that seems to be more focused on being a money maker. E On 4/2/2010 11:30 AM, David E Jones wrote: > In the last thread about this it sounded like people were more interested in doing a separate conference that would be less expensive to attend. > > Either way, I haven't heard anything about anyone pushing for any sort of conference. Has anyone else heard anything, or is anyone else interested in pushing this along? > > -David > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > > >> Hi all, >> >> so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here >> (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), the conference call is over at the end of the month. >> >> so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Erwan de FERRIERES >> www.nereide.biz >> > -- Erik Schuessler Brainfood | Web ERP Solutions 4004 East Side Ave. Dallas, TX 75226 |
|
|
In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2
Hi David:
I would be very interested in hosting sessions similar to last November's ApacheCon in Oakland. I'm prepared to commit to at least (3) 50 minute sessions. If someone wants to organize something out side of ApacheCon, then, depending on the venue, I may be able to commit to participating in that. My session(s) will be end-user focused. In fact, I'm considering submitting a proposal for a session on end-user use of the framework independent of any applications. I'm not sure what is meant by the rest of this thread, but regardless of the participation from project committers, I plan to submit at least one proposal. Regards, Ruth David E Jones wrote: > In the last thread about this it sounded like people were more interested in doing a separate conference that would be less expensive to attend. > > Either way, I haven't heard anything about anyone pushing for any sort of conference. Has anyone else heard anything, or is anyone else interested in pushing this along? > > -David > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > > >> Hi all, >> >> so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here >> (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), the conference call is over at the end of the month. >> >> so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Erwan de FERRIERES >> www.nereide.biz >> > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by gomola
Hi Erik:
Are you talking about ApacheCon as a "for profit" endeavor? Regards, Ruth Erik Schuessler wrote: > I would agree, it is interesting to have a "for profit" event on free > or open software, it is kinda self defeating. I understand if they > were just covering costs, but that seems to be more focused on being a > money maker. > > E > > On 4/2/2010 11:30 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> In the last thread about this it sounded like people were more >> interested in doing a separate conference that would be less >> expensive to attend. >> >> Either way, I haven't heard anything about anyone pushing for any >> sort of conference. Has anyone else heard anything, or is anyone else >> interested in pushing this along? >> >> -David >> >> >> On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here >>> (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), >>> the conference call is over at the end of the month. >>> >>> so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- >>> Erwan de FERRIERES >>> www.nereide.biz >>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi David: > > I would be very interested in hosting sessions similar to last > November's ApacheCon in Oakland. I'm prepared to commit to at least (3) > 50 minute sessions. If someone wants to organize something out side of > ApacheCon, then, depending on the venue, I may be able to commit to > participating in that. My session(s) will be end-user focused. In fact, > I'm considering submitting a proposal for a session on end-user use of > the framework independent of any applications. I'd talk about git svn workflows with ofbiz. |
|
|
In reply to this post by gomola
Let's build an app to manage this on top of OFBiz. We can build all the
expenses into a project and have the price of the ticket dynamically calculated off the gross cost plus some safety margin. I also have a Condorcet voting rig that I built on top of the survey system that would allow us to collaboratively rank choices such as talks, the location for the conference and outside events. Erik Schuessler wrote: > I would agree, it is interesting to have a "for profit" event on free > or open software, it is kinda self defeating. I understand if they > were just covering costs, but that seems to be more focused on being a > money maker. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [hidden email] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
Adam Heath wrote:
> I'd talk about git svn workflows with ofbiz. > I could do something on one of these: - the Open Source for America website - a scheme for dynamically allocating warehouse bins and releasing them based on order item flow - QuickBooks integration via SOAP/QBXML - FedEx shipment estimation integration via SOAP -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [hidden email] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
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 On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi David: > > I would be very interested in hosting sessions similar to last November's ApacheCon in Oakland. I'm prepared to commit to at least (3) 50 minute sessions. If someone wants to organize something out side of ApacheCon, then, depending on the venue, I may be able to commit to participating in that. My session(s) will be end-user focused. In fact, I'm considering submitting a proposal for a session on end-user use of the framework independent of any applications. > > I'm not sure what is meant by the rest of this thread, but regardless of the participation from project committers, I plan to submit at least one proposal. > > Regards, > Ruth > > David E Jones wrote: >> In the last thread about this it sounded like people were more interested in doing a separate conference that would be less expensive to attend. >> >> Either way, I haven't heard anything about anyone pushing for any sort of conference. Has anyone else heard anything, or is anyone else interested in pushing this along? >> >> -David >> >> >> On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here >>> (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), the conference call is over at the end of the month. >>> >>> so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- >>> Erwan de FERRIERES >>> www.nereide.biz >>> >> >> >> |
|
|
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. > [hidden email] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com |
|
|
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> 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. Sounds wonderful. |
|
|
In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2
Hi David:
Sorry you had such bad experiences. I guess what you are saying here is that I need to forge ahead with my own proposals to the organizers and not expect any backing from you. That is ok with me. I know how much time and effort you spent in the past coordinating these things and I for one appreciate everything you've done. FYI, my offer to present at both this and the past ApacheCon were/are not predicated on getting paid. I never assumed I would get paid for any work related to the project, be it code contributions or ApacheCon presentations. I do this because I want to do it and I want to give back to the community. I still believe in OFBiz and this is a wonderful opportunity to tell the world about it. Regards, Ruth 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 > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > >> Hi David: >> >> I would be very interested in hosting sessions similar to last November's ApacheCon in Oakland. I'm prepared to commit to at least (3) 50 minute sessions. If someone wants to organize something out side of ApacheCon, then, depending on the venue, I may be able to commit to participating in that. My session(s) will be end-user focused. In fact, I'm considering submitting a proposal for a session on end-user use of the framework independent of any applications. >> >> I'm not sure what is meant by the rest of this thread, but regardless of the participation from project committers, I plan to submit at least one proposal. >> >> Regards, >> Ruth >> >> David E Jones wrote: >> >>> In the last thread about this it sounded like people were more interested in doing a separate conference that would be less expensive to attend. >>> >>> Either way, I haven't heard anything about anyone pushing for any sort of conference. Has anyone else heard anything, or is anyone else interested in pushing this along? >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> so I'm coming back on this subject, but as it is said here >>>> (https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apachecon_na_2010_business_community), the conference call is over at the end of the month. >>>> >>>> so, are we making an OFBiz symposium ? Or an OFBiz camp ? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Erwan de FERRIERES >>>> www.nereide.biz >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ean Schuessler
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. >> |
|
|
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. >>> |
|
|
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. >>>> >>>> > > > |
|
|
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. >>>>> >> >> >> |
smime.p7s (3K) |
|
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, 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. >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> |
|
|
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, 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |