On 04/20/2015 04:01 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Good luck with the 'we' aspect. And due to recent statements I don't have
the feeling that I am part of that.
I don't know what that this is in reference to. Can you elaborate?
If you're referring to my "who is we" question on the other thread, that
was just my way of asking of you were volunteering. I'm sorry if that
made you feel like you weren't part.
Nick stated very clearly what our experience has been in the regard of
contacting communities - it works better when it comes from "inside"
than when it's an unknown outsider.
As to whether you are part of it, we ran your OFBiz track the last two
events, and greatly appreciate your participation in that.
The point of this thread is that presentation selection, the way that we
have done it so far, has resulted in a track width that isn't drawing
attendees (See Leif's email for a larger discussion of that), and our
producer has decided to move to a strategy that will grow attendees,
while, over time, being able to financially subsidize the kind of
community event that we want to do in conjunction.
Our voice, as the ASF, is always welcome, but in the end it's their
decision because it's their financial risk.
In the past we tried to give all of the financial risk to producers
while retaining all of the control to ourselves. That turned out not to
be a sustainable model, several times. We have finally learned this
lesson, and don't want to risk unlearning it.
We are aware, and discussed in our meetings with LF, that this might
result in some members of the community feeling cut out of the loop. For
that, I certainly take responsibility, while reiterating that I think
it's the right decision for the long-term health of this event.
--Rich
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/20/2015 03:40 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Leif,
From what I understood from the statements by Ross, Jan, et all in
another
thread today (subject: Proposing Tracks for ACEU15, incomplete archive:
http://apachecon.markmail.org/message/7ezkr5dubt6ota4c) is that we don't
have to propose/discuss scope, focus and depth of the Apachecon in general
and of tracks in particular anymore. That is now done by the LF.
We are in an advisory role, since we are the content experts.
So it's certainly not the case that our voice is silenced. That would be
silly on the part of the LF, since we are both client and customer, in some
sense, for the event. So, we advise, but it's their decision, because it's
their financial risk.
--
Rich Bowen - [email protected] - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
--
Rich Bowen - [email protected] - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
