Shawn wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Don't know if it's general knowledge on the list yet or not, but the
>exec has determined the next LinuxFest will be in the Fall of 2007,
>instead of in May.
>
As I have a keen interest in this project, I have only heard rumours.
If there was an announcement it must have been at one of the meetings
that I missed. Something of this magnitude should be communicated to
all Clug members in more than one medium.
> With that in mind, we're in line for the 9 month
>range. However, something really has to happen soon. Or at least we
>should hear about what IS happening so we don't get worried. There is a
>definite lack of communications regarding LinuxFest to the list.
>
>I'll put money on the table for this. I will bet the Exec $25 that
>LinuxFest 07 does NOT happen. I'm taking this stand based on the
>actions I've seen thus far. I would be more than happy to loose this
>bet though.
>
>While there are tons of good intentions, it looks as though there is no
>serious interest in planning the event (with the possible exception of
>Mike Bougie). Based on my role last year, I know how much effort this
>takes. It's not Hard work, just lots of it.
>
>As for the move to the Fall, I've heard two reasons for this. First, it
>was felt (by someone) that we would need that long to plan the event.
>Second, it wouldn't be fair to the next exec to dump LinuxFest on their
>lap so quickly if it were in May.
>
>
I believe that Clug has its heart in the right place, particular the
current and past executives that they would give up their valuable time
for the benefit of others. However, project managers and financial
wizards, you are not. It is probably not public knowledge unless you
were part of the planning of LinuxFest 2006, but that would have been
doomed had it not been for 3 key people and 2 financial supporters (I'm
not talking about how everyone pitched in the week of the event -- as
with any not for profit, you can't do anything without the help of its
members and affiliates like CUUG). Though the official planning started
sufficiently early, there was no commitment to deliver. By Jan of 2006,
we had only a few speakers, we had no financial sponsors, we had no agenda.
IMHO, the move to the fall has been ill thought out. Has anyone
considered the financial risk of not using the University of Calgary's
offer of free space. Considering our track record, I would not be
comfortable in assuming any additional risks as Clug could not cover the
financial risks for LinusFest 2006. Secondly, McDonalds is successful
because they are consistent, not because they make a great hamburger. In
terms of LinuxFest, it means the formula for 2006 worked more or less,
same timing and same venue. I know we can do it for half the money, but
it means we have to start now so the pressure isn't as great on the
people that need to pull it off.
It never ceases to amaze me how many creative and innovative ideas the
group has, but there are very few that can see how it can be
accomplished or paid for financially. In January, we were still
debating whether LinuxFest 2006 should go on and how do we as sponsors
for money when we don't know what the event is going to look like and
how are we going to solicit speakers if we don't know if we have the
money. I had offered personally to back the project with a $2000 loan
as I was confident the debt would be covered. To my surprise, I was
wrong (for those that don't know me, I hate to be wrong particularly
when it comes to money) -- this did not spur confidence in the group and
chicken and egg issue subsided but it did not yield any results in the
sponsorship side.
>This tells me the current exec *might* be looking to pass the buck to
>the next exec. If that's the case, I'd rather they just say so. Of
>course, I'm not on the exec, and was not partial to that decision, so I
>could be wrong on both counts.
>
>
I don't have anything to say about the executive at any point in time.
They are doing a job that you couldn't pay me to do. I hate politics
and anytime you have more than one person, you got politics.
>The idea last year was to create a group to plan/run LinuxFest OUTSIDE
>the exec, so the event would not depend on the executive. That said,
>anything impacting the group (like promotion of the group, using the
>group's money, etc.) should be subject to the aproval of the exec.
>However, I think we have a mandate to make LinuxFest happen. So the
>planning committee needs to grab the bull by the horns and run with it -
>with input from the exec. (One lesson learned last year though is the
>project manager MUST do the the job, and we MUST NOT lead by committee.
> Er, who's the project manager this year??)
>
>
Mark McNair did a bang up job on the post mortem of LinuxFest 2006 and
had ask that I write something from my point of view. I neglected to do
so because I didn't think it would be sufficient benefit. Though the
post mortem was not meant for open circulation but should be available
to the executives and anyone who will be involved with planning
Linuxfest 2007. There are a couple of thoughts that are shareable in an
open forum and they are as follows.
1. Shawn's idea of having a group plan/run LinuxFest outside the exec
was on track. The exec's job is management - the identification
of a need, to solicit support from the general population, to
provide guidelines on operations, to act as a sounding board and
to select a project manager. At this point the job of the exec is
finished other than to monitor the progress of the project.
Certainly, the exec could and should be members of this project
but for the most part, they are not the exec in this project,
unless of course an issue arises that requires the exec to
address. For those that were not privy to the 2006 planning
sessions, that is exactly how Shawn had dealt with project but in
the end jumped in as project manager because of the lack of progress.
2. Roles and responsibilities are assigned to groups of two people.
The buddy system works well as many people want to help but are
sometimes are intimidated by the responsibility. It works well to
have someone with the enthusiasm and time and the other with the
experience and knowledge. It is just generally good to have
someone to fall back on to get the work done -- like it was said
before, it is not hard work, but there is lots of it. If the
group reports back at the agreed time and progress has not been
made, then the project manager needs to take action. Particularly
with the speakers and the sponsorship, nothing was being done.
3. The exec is like the CEO of any company, you can't do a single
thing on your own -- you NEED the people of the organization. It
is hard to take particularly for myself as I too am a certified
control freak. It means the exec can not be the bottle neck to an
approval process, they can not be involved in every decision, they
can not be involved in the approval of every expense -- that is
what policies, procedures and budgets are for. Certainly, I see
the need to co-ordinate the communication to potential speakers
and sponsors, but this does not mean that the exec needs to be
involved in every conversation. It means that the co-ordination
needs to be there so that we don't look like a bunch of amateurs
in having more than one person ask them to be a speaker or sponsor
or to ask them the same question two or more times. But it is
both amateurish and ineffective to have one person do all the
commuincation.
4. Planning is always good, but considering that little to no
effective planning was done last year, any amount this year would
be helpful. Everything does not rest on the exec's shoulders.
General Tao once said 'As for the best leaders, the people do not
notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and
praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people
hate...When the best leader's work is done the people say, "We did
it ourselves!"'. (One of the reasons why I would prefer to be
anonymous -- so much for that.)
Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way, LinuxFest was an important pet
project and I would hate to see this inaugural start of an annual event
be a one hit wonder.
>Anyways, that's my take. And I know I'm ruffling feathers here. So be
>it. I'm more than happy to play the agitator when needed.
>
>Shawn
>
>
>Gustin Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>There is a good article by John "Maddog" Hall in this months Linux
>>Journal regarding the planning and execution of local events (such as
>>our Linuxfest). People and places are often booked 9-12 months out, so
>>we are definitely behind schedule.
>>
>>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFFWQYw2B6Swl9qN24RAhVuAJ9WxnF0c0BBh2JoAFjgZ70dWxTSvgCfXPE5
>ZDE7kZjwGI16LJmQHCTCFh8=
>=8/BX
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>clug-talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
>Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
>**Please remove these lines when replying
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
**Please remove these lines when replying
