[Linux-aus] Announcing Everything Open - Conference 2023

[Paul Wayper]

On 15/10/22 10:33 am, Russell Stuart via linux-aus wrote:
> On 15/10/22 08:16, Paul Wayper via linux-aus wrote:
>> The LA Council summarily dismissed the bid.  No conversation was entered 
>> into.  We were told it wasn't suitable.
>
> The bid was for a hybrid in-person/online conference, and it made it clear 
> the team was not interested in running a purely online conference. The 
> proposal was put in while COVID was in full swing.  It was effectively 
> "betting" the COVID restrictions would be lifted.

That was not how we "bet".  I'm sorry, but that's misrepresenting our bid.  
And I'm sure people's own memories will remind them of the differences between 
the restrictions in February 2021, when the bid was submitted, and those in 
January 2022 when the conference would have occurred.

Thank you though, Russell, for admitting that yes there was actually a bid.  
You and the LA Council had said in the past there were no bids.  It might have 
been one you rejected, but it was still a bid.  I'm glad you've set the record 
straight.

And I note that Joel has effectively said that OE 2023 will be a "hybrid" 
conference, with much the same model as we proposed: that people could attend 
in person or online depending on their own views of the COVID and other risks, 
and they would use the online tools used by LCA 2021 to make sure there was a 
healthy online interaction with the speakers and the talks.  So the LA Council 
has made the same "bet" on a hybrid EO 2023 that it previously rejected in a 
hybrid LCA 2022.  What's changed?

> Finally, the current executive was surprised by your characterisation of the 
> communications from the 2021 council, so this morning we dug up their 
> written response to the bid. Yes, it said the TL;DR is a motion was moved to 
> accept the bid, but it failed for lack of votes. It didn't reveal the 
> private deliberations of the council of course, but it did discuss the 
> ruminations that happened in general terms. I won't publish the full 
> response here (it's quite lengthy and maybe you would prefer we didn't do 
> that, but feel free to do it yourself). Instead here are two quotes from it:
>
> - We have also discussed the current COVID-19 situation
>
> - We would like to extend an invitation to this team to submit a bid for 
> LCA2023

It's a pity then that the LA council didn't write to the organisers of that 
bid when it was clear to them that there weren't any others around for LCA 2023.

This is all water under the bridge now.  I just wanted to put the record 
straight that there was actually a bid that the LA Council rejected.  And I 
think the LA Council should establish a clear process of communication about 
conferences that the LA Council has decided it wants bids for, including:

* Notification of start of bidding process.

* Notification of end of bidding process, including number of bids submitted 
(before the Council has decided whether to accept them or not).

* If a bid has been selected, then a success should be announced as soon as 
possible (perhaps without disclosing which bid has been successful).

* If there were no bids selected by the LA council, then this also needs to be 
announced as soon as possible.

* If the LA council accepts any bid in which LA Council members are a part of 
the bidding team, those members must abstain from voting.

* If the LA council has no bids for a conference, any team bidding for it must 
notify the LA council as soon as they can.  If this happens, the LA council 
must notify its membership that a new bid is being considered.

It's the lack of transparency from the LA Council over this whole issue that 
has disappointed me the most.  That is the thing I would like to see 
rectified.  After all, we do want to Open Everything, don't we?

Regards,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20221016/48e38769/attachment-0001.html>