[Linux-aus] Re: LCA: bringing the process forward

[Michael Bennett]

Conrad Parker wrote:

>I fully support the role of LA in choosing the location of linux.conf.au.
>
>I think the crucial thing is that teams who want to put on a conference
>should be able to just fucking do it (JFDI).
>
While JFDI has worked well in the past, it doesn't offer any assurances 
of future success. It also means that a lot of the same work is repeated 
year after year. I would hope that LCA could become an FOS project that 
just worked out of the box with minimal effort (apt-get install lca). 
The organisers each year could then spend their time hacking it to make 
it cooler rather than installing different forks of it each year. It 
could then be shared to the world.

>At the end of the day, LA
>deciding that they will support a conference is this: a nice rubberstamp
>for an official linux.conf.au, a conduit to get in touch with groups
>who've done it before, maybe a bit of cash to get the ball rolling.
>  
>
The conference organisers are stewards of a single LCA. LA are stewards 
for all LCAs. There is a bigger picture of ensuring LCA continues to 
meet the objectives of LA which is to promote our community.

>But, the success of a conference lives or dies on the energy and passion
>of the people organising it. They should form and get their shit
>together well before LA comes into the picture. Then the two groups can
>get together and make a conference that rocks.
>  
>
Umm, shouldn't the conference have died then. The organisers looked 
pretty frazzled at the conference with their minimal levels of energy 
maintained by caffeine and sugar (and V/Red Bull). The conference's 
success required leadership, planning, effort, and competence.

>So, what we don't want to get into is a situation where LA makes any
>kind of decision about who to support before a team with energy and
>passion has formed, and somehow shown that they have what it takes.
>
>There are any number of lame conferences out there which fail because
>they don't operate like this; rather than operate from the ground up,
>they decide too early who will be running a conference, and where. So,
>for the record, here's some ways that LA could fuck up linux.conf.au:
>
><snip>
>  
>
I have to say that if the LA ctte wants to do that then it is their 
democratically elected right to do it. It's an LA conference. Having 
said that I don't know why they would want to. I doubt they could really 
anyway. LCAs success is based on great speakers who want to come back 
year after year and enthusiastic attendees who come along and meet and 
hack with their friends. The conference organisers main responsibility 
is to this success. The organisers though make each years already 
successful conference rock with the additional stuff of cool events, 
prizes, and other goodies with the help of LCA sponsors (and dunk tanks).

LCA is a conference about our community. It is not about a product or a 
person. A lot of conferences are based upon a product or person and the 
conferences fail when something better comes along.

>Should it be competitive? Sure, that's a natural consequence of
>passionate people wanting the same thing. But if LA can mediate the
>discussion openly and well in advance, we (the community) can avoid
>situations of frustration, embarrassment and simple bewilderment.
>  
>
Competitiveness is a natural consequence of passionate people wanting a 
finite resource. There should be a lot more LCAs to come so that 
everyone can have a turn if they want it.

Seeya
Michael.