On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 16:11 +0800, Jacqueline McNally wrote:
> Jonathon Coombes wrote:
> > I know that after the MiniConf, the idea was put forward that it may
> >  be possible to have two MiniConfs - one at LCA and one later in the
> >  year back in Australia and separate to LCA.
> OK, but this is independent of LCA and what they call miniconfs.

Agreed, but in the spirit of MiniConfs, they are designed to be a
springboard to bigger conferences. LCA is a testing ground to see
how it may work.

> > This may still be an option, but I would like to think that if this 
> > model does go ahead, it would be based on the uptake of the LCA-based
> >  MiniConf growing too much and having to separate due to resources 
> > and attendance.
> I don't feel this is appropriate. As there is a maximum number of
> registrants to LCA (that attend the miniconfs for free), while I think
> it is unlikely to happen, I would not like to encourage people to come
> to the OpenOffice.org Miniconf if they do not wish to attend LCA.

Umm... not sure I understand here? My comment was that if we do have
to separate from LCA, then it should be because we have too many
participants at the OOoMiniconf so that LCA cannot accommodate us.
I do not see any value in holding it with LCA if it gets big enough
to warrant a separation?

> > I would recommend that we try and get OOoMiniConf done as a part of 
> > LCA and then base the possibility of a second conference on the 
> > outcome of that event.
> I think they are two different things. LCA invites people to hold
> miniconfs. They offer the venue and facilities, and some promotion. All
> that we do is draw speakers and attendees from the LCA registrants to
> the miniconf.

True, but I hope that we draw more than just Linux/LCA "geeks" as such.
If that is our only target audience then I think we do need to plan a
different conference - one that is more encompassing of all the 
technologies of OOo.

> If you wish to discuss hosting a separate Australian event, please start
> another thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Also, I don't know about other people, but I have been very busy and
> >  totally missed the announcement regarding MiniConf.
> Unless you have unsubscribed from some OOo lists and AU Linux and OSS
> lists that you were subscribed to earlier in the year, I'm not sure how
> you could have missed it. I can count at least 4 or 5 times that you
> would have received the same message :)

No, just the amount of email and the head filtering may have skipped
over it at the time.

> The announcements went out the day after OpenOffice.org's fifth
> anniversary. It was a very busy week, as a week later we released 2.0.
> So perhaps there was too much partying amongst the OOo folk.
> I sent the notices and announcements to all the same lists, projects and
> media as I did for LCA2005.

Yes, I was very busy that week!

> > I would hope that we get more people submitting papers.
> The last day to submit papers was set for today. This was so that there
> were a few days to a week to evaluate the papers and let potential
> speakers know before the early bird registration closed on 18 November.
> One of the complaints from last year was not being able to avail oneself
> of the early bird registration.


> Are you suggesting that we extend the closing date for the submission of
> abstracts? I'm happy to extend it a couple of days into next week ...

Is extending the date going to get the required number of papers though?
>From what you have said, it seems like there is only one or two speakers
so far?

> As I have said privately, it is better to put on the best possible
> miniconf, rather than one, just because we can. I would rather release
> the venue and facilities so that they may be better used by another
> project or group if we were not aiming to do our best.

Agreed, but from what I have understood so far, our timeline is
running out and we have limited response for papers, right? What
date determines that we do not have the speakers to go ahead and
release the resources back to LCA?


Reply via email to