> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Jim Brain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A larger concern for me would be what is implied in the "VCF would 'run' > it...". For instance, while I do not begrudge the VCF East config per se, > it's tough for a combo exhibitor/vendor, and I know that's not going to > change, as per the board's wishes. Still, calling a hobbyist who sells some > of his creations a vendor is a dubious distinction, in my opinion, since no > one is making much money on these things, it's just a service for fellow > enthusiasts. All of the other shows I attend (like the upcoming CocoFEST!) > make no distinction. Thus, if VCF running the show means that all future > shows have to have a separate vendor area, that would detract from my > attendance. I realize I'm just one enthusiast, but I feel it's useful to > share at least my opinion.
I understand the desire to having a separate vendor area so as to keep the exhibit area a bit “neater” and more focused on demos rather than selling/trading. It is a tradeoff and I agree it’s a choice that folks have to make if they want to exhibit or vend (ie without a number of folks it’s hard to “do both”). > > I also think it would be a mistake to make all the shows too "homogenized" in > format, if that's a goal in this directive. Some folks attend multiple > shows, and the variety I think would be of benefit. > > Unlike most commercial “shows” where it’s the same vendors/exhibitors at each, VCF *will* be different because you’ll have different vendors/exhibitors showing up that tend to be from the “local” geographic area. TTFN - Guy
