On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Jonathan Blandford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:10 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > > > > I've been pushing the board to do the following: > > > > Shared: > > * sponsorship > > * registration & accommodation recommendations > > * local team > > * organising resource & infrastructure costs > > * Some social events > > > > Co-ordinated/negotiated/agreed: > > * Travel budgets > > * Target surplus and its distribution > > * Programme for shared sessions > > > > Separate: > > * GUADEC and Akademy programs/BOFs/meetings > > * At least one social event > > * Decision on sponsored attendees > > This doesn't sound like colocation, and sounds very much like the one > conference that has two tracks. Colocation means (to me) that we are in > the same city at the same time, and have the possibility for a couple > events. I would rather see registration, and some of the resource > costs per-conference, and especially sponsorship be per-conference. > > > I'm pretty sure everyone's aware that the devil is now in the details, > > and there will be times when we are in conflict over some issues. I > > expect clearing up sponsorship and distribution of surplus will be the > > biggest one, and the one we most need to settle quickly. > > > > To my knowledge, Akademy runs at a loss, or no better than break-even, > > while GUADEC has allowed the GNOME Foundation to propose hackfests, fund > > speakers travelling to conferences, pay for the Boston Summit, fund the > > GNOME Outreach Programme: Accessibility, and more. > > Agree with this last statement a lot. I would consider that an > institutional and structural advantage of GNOME, and I would really > rather not see us give that up. Looking at the aKademy sponsorship > list, I see significantly fewer sponsors, a smaller conference, and less > money raised. It would be crazy to effectively cede a couple hackfests > to KDE. > > I must admit, I am pretty disappointed that the board did not really > discuss this prior to putting out the call for bids (or even accepting > any) and only now are we trying to figure out what we have agreed to. > As you said, the devil is in the details, but these are some really big > details! > > Thanks, > -Jonathan Jonathan, we did discuss these issues and it came down to being a co-located event or it wasn't going to fly with either board. It was heavily discussed at DAM in Austin. We perhaps could have advertised it more but we almost didn't put out the joint call for bids because KDE objecting to details of just the press release alone. On our end we ended up getting distracted by the Stormy hiring process and felt that the co-location was the least of the controversial options so we put out the call for bids with that in the wording. All this talk about co-funding is pretty impossible and short sighted given the agreements we made with different parties. Both boards will be looking closely at how this is organized and make sure it is pulled off as originally conceived. -- John
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
