On Wednesday 28 October 2009 17:29:14 John Pinner wrote: > > The sponsorship brochure went out in March.
I thought it was later, but even so, I think it's still quite close in for all those sponsors who will inevitably dither about it or claim that they've used up their sponsorship budget already. [Publicity] > The publicity could have been approved, it suffered because our > publicity volunteer went awol during the run-up to EP, although the > publicity can't have been that bad bearing in mind the number of > delegates. I think there's been enough demand for UK-based Python conferences, as PyCon UK has shown already. I've probably already said that the regional conferences may end up dominating in Europe, as PyCon Italia and France seem also to have demonstrated with quite a following of their own. EuroPython could end up like the EU presidency (as it is now), cycling through the existing conferences as a kind of extra branding for those events. > There was quite a lot of chasing sprinters, but I guess they have > their minds on higher things ;-) This is where the publicity has to permeate the different lists and groups, right down to people who could consider coming along to sprint on their favourite projects. [My remarks] > I think that you have the wrong impression, there was very little done > afresh: > > EP2009 used a development of the same booking/registration system as > EP2008 and PyCon UK 2008 which was a development of the PyCon UK 2007 > one. I got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Maybe it was the discussion about redoing/extending/improving the booking system which did it. > Likewise the EP2009 talks submission system was a development of PyCon > UK 2008/ EP2008. > > The EP2009 wiki was born out of the EP2008 wiki, with a python.org > theme by TheSheep. > > EP2008 registration was in a separate site to the wiki. For Ep2009 > this site became the 'home' site with the static information, and this > used the python.org software. > > So I think there was a good re-use of existing facilities, with > evolutionary development rather than revolutionary. I don't disagree entirely, but what I disliked was the way the structure of the EP2008 Wiki was ignored in favour of populating the EP2009 one. I'm not arguing for a strict continuation of what went before, but it's a lot easier to work from stuff that's already done - you know what kind of information you need and where it should be - and from what I saw of the EP2009 Wiki when I first started cleaning it up, it seemed like a lot of work had to be redone and not just because the venue was different. Indeed, I wondered why it wasn't possible to reuse the PyCon UK content for a lot of things. (And I still think having two sites is a duplication of work.) There were other resources that were available but ignored, such as those around publicity (http://wiki.europython.eu/Publicity vs. http://www.europython2008.eu/Planning/Publicity). I also think it was a mistake to re-implement the blog just because people didn't like the idea of Wordpress, which seems to be more than adequate if the stream of people "having their say" on the current blog is any indication. It was a successful conference, so maybe I don't really have the right to complain, but a lot of these factors influenced how I spent my time earlier this year and why I didn't spend as much of it on EuroPython matters. Paul _______________________________________________ Europython-improve mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
