-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Comments inline.
bogi wrote: > Shawn, i will accept your bet, also i can tell you at this moment, that you > have lost the money :-), all we are discussing is what are our possibilities, > and what worked and what did not work, so when the discussion opens in the > group level, totally open, and the suggestions come in droves, at least some > of us would have a half decent idea of what worked, and could / should be > done again, and what ideas did not pan out, and maybe a new approach would be > more appropriate ... It would seem to me that these types of discussion would/should include the people who planned last year's event. I know my thoughts have not been sought (though I have been free enough with them with Mike and you), or Kin or Mark McNair's (to my knowledge). > committee or Sig or any other group that would handle the events work and > ease it significantly, after tomorrow, we would have another meeting to put > some more dots over the appropriate letters, and by any measurement, starting > a week later would not be a major problem, specially if the work process > would be a lot more streamlined. There are some of the key questions: a week, sure, 3 months? I'm not so sure.... (Sept to Nov) > Are we going to enlist corporate support ? Banner space and booth for a > reasonable contribution ... ? > Yes, and would that be an issue for U of C, and exactly how much would it be > an issue ? That was always a possibility. And not very expensive. Time constraints demanded that we chop that option last year. They will again this year if we do not make a solid choice on this NOW and then take the necessary action. > If we can offer more perks for the speakers, could we get more speakers? or > are we too insignificant for anyone to come to talk at our event, ok, so > likely if we would offer some extra perks, we would be able to get more > famous speakers. And i think we are significant enough that we would get a > few antways, even without any extra perks. Paying for speakers is the wrong move. Period. It worked last year, but these were also folks who would have come out regardless. And if not them, then others would have been found if we had started sooner. Ohio, and LinuxFest NorthWest do not fund their speakers in any way (to my knowledge - but I'm checking). Instead, they ask the local user groups, and those in the surrounding areas, if any of their members would like to speak. This results in a very wide diversity of topics, at no cost to the Event itself. It even results in the likes of Google, Digium, IBM, etc. - both speaking and sponsoring. > Of the multitude of presentations which where the most successful in > attracting the audience, and would it be a good idea to have more of those? > Of the multitude of other activities, which where effective, useful to the > audience, and which where not and why? Reflection is good. > here are just a few questions off the top of my head, that we can and should > come up with reasonable answers to kick the ball of with, instead of a lets > go do something approach. Needless to say, the event last year was a success, So what you're saying is that the Exec will be planning/implementing this event? Even with the possibility that the exec will not be the same after March? I don't think the answer is decisive in either way, but at least tell us flat out if that is the case. > i guess anyone can arrive to that conclusion, that however makes the planing > and execution of the next event even more delicate a process, we have to > build on our successes and improve on our failures and not repeat them. Once > we get all the the feedback we can identify them failures and then > concentrate on improvements and fixes for them, also we can identify the > success elements and properly repeat them. The new ideas and their > implementation is something i can not forsee , but i am sure we will have > many. How do you mean "once we get all the feedback"? Don't you have a copy of the feedback forms? Or Mark's after action report? Or the comments from the members? Or last year's planners? What other feedback do you need? How long should we wait for that feedback? Another month? two? Haven't we waited long enough? My concern is that we are hearing what WILL be happening. Or in other words, "wait a little longer". Can you, or someone on the exec tell us what HAS happened? Where is the planning at? What decisions have been made? (There still has been no official statement regarding the date change to any of the mailing lists - it's been more than a month now.) I know I'm being a bit confrontational with my statements, but that is not really my intent. Instead, I'm hoping to nudge things along, get the ball rolling, etc. Or at least learn that something IS going on - because at this point it really seems there's next to nothing happening. Shawn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFWjOA2B6Swl9qN24RAjP8AKC1Iwn7ZfCNHMvzoCYlXORQktw8iQCgly+y Cl8qAMUUZ9J8cjw6LPG20E8= =fMGE -----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
