John Pinner: > [...] I do agree, however we can all be grateful that the Spanish San > Sebastien team have made a fine proposal which will ensure that we > have a fine EuroPython 2015.
I don't have much to add to John's response. Maybe we should be happy there is one proposal for EuroPython 2015 on the table. Still, it seemed to me like the fact of having only one proposal on that EPS table for 2014 was considered to be one of the very initial bad smells which later turned into a situation apparently unbearable for the local organizers and the EPS alike. So I'm a little surprised to see this "selection procedure" being repeated again without learning from mistakes made. Maybe all that Jazz about the "new organization style" will help, but as far as I'm concerned I've not been asked to give my vote about anything, despite this one sentence on the EPS' members page: "We consider all EuroPython attendees as having a say in the workings of the EPS". So it seems I still have to become an EPS member to "have a say", which I, quite frankly, don't really want to be after having attended a few of its public meetings, including the one in Berlin which I attended (all of them as long as I could bear). It's also kind of hard for anybody to have a stake in an organization that doesn't even publish anywhere how many members it has. Since that would be really easy to do, people must assume a reason behind that and such assumptions are rarely positive. The effect is that others cannot evaluate the legitimacy of an organization for all the people it claims to represent. Speaking for myself, I've never voted in favor of or against anybody in the EPS (being a non-member) so I do wonder, why it says it is representing me? If I'm not fundamentally misunderstanding something I'm surprised nobody else seems to have raised these issues before. Cheers, Dinu _______________________________________________ EuroPython-Improve mailing list EuroPython-Improve@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
