One comment from me on this - the bid process itself is quite a bit of work.<div><br></div><div>I was thinking of bidding for 2013, started looking at the bid documents and I already had a little bit of stuff done from a failed OSDC bid. But when I heard Canberra were bidding, I didn't bother with it - as there would have been a fair bit of work to do the bid properly, and looking at the way that OSDC Canberra had gone I realised I had no chance against Canberra.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is there some way that we could just do a more lightweight EOI process instead of a formal bid? This could even be given verbally over a video conference or something to save time on the potential bidder. This might encourage more people to step up initially and think about having a go. As potential organisers we could also get an idea for the chances of actual success before we spend a lot of time preparing bid documents.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My OSDC bid for instance was knocked back as I chose the Casino as a venue - it was what Gold Coast Tourism conference facilitor people had recommended to me based on cost/numbers etc. If I'd have known that would be a problem beforehand I could have switched to convention centre (still owned by casino though) a hotel or one of the Unis.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Just thinking out aloud there - I think this is the way OSDC are doing it (although I don't think they are having any more success at getting bids than LCA from what I can see).</div><div><br></div>
<div>Steve</div><div> <div><br></div><div><br></div><div> is there anyway we can do something like an expression of interest from bidders before the actual bid? <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Chris Neugebauer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrisjrn@gmail.com" target="_blank">chrisjrn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Paul Wayper <<a href="mailto:paulway@mabula.net">paulway@mabula.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> No matter how well publicised any change to LCA is, no matter how many people<br>
> here or anywhere agree that it's absolutely necessary to do something<br>
> different at LCA in order for it to survive, there will be someone somewhere<br>
> who decides that that's their own Custerian Last Stand and will vocally<br>
> criticise the team because cutting that back is a personal affront to their<br>
> very dignity. We've seen this with many things that are, in relation to<br>
> getting five days of awesome technical content from some of the brightest<br>
> people in Australia and the world, trivial. I fear to think what would happen<br>
> if a fundamental change was made to LCA.<br>
><br>
> Now, it seems to me that the only reason to try to make radical changes to the<br>
> way LCA runs is if the whole bid process is irrevocably FUBARed. That, to me,<br>
> does not seem to be the case.<br>
<br>
</div>I think the bid process has been FUBARed for quite some time. Since<br>
LCA2010, we've had three conferences, and a grand total of three<br>
unique bids.<br>
<br>
IIRC, Ballarat and Brisbane bade for 2011, Canberra for 2013.<br>
<br>
We should have seen the bid pool drying up *years* ago.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> So while I think there's lots of good ideas in this whole discussion about<br>
> ways that LCA could be different, I think - personally - that some of the<br>
> voices that have been most critical of changing LCA in the past are now the<br>
> ones proposing radical changes that don't inconvenience them at all or<br>
> detriment their experience at LCA.<br>
<br>
</div>For what it's worth, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I want<br>
to run an LCA – not immediately after I finish with PyCon (as 2014<br>
would be), but 2015 or 2016 would probably be achievable. If anything<br>
I've suggested doesn't get tried out before I get a shot at it, you<br>
can be sure that I'll go out of my way to do what I've said.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> There are plenty of models for ways to run LCA that could be easier and<br>
> cheaper. Lots of them can be done by the actual team running LCA - I'm sure<br>
> Linux Australia would look with interest at bids that proposed to make LCA a<br>
> simpler conference to run. There are also things that Linux Australia can do,<br>
> especially when it comes to reducing the amount of learning each new team has<br>
> to do of the mundanities of running a conference. LA, and the LCA teams,<br>
> already do a lot of things that make the next team's life hugely easier.<br>
> These are not to be overlooked.<br>
<br>
</div>Likewise, LCA should be able to learn from what e.g. PyCon has done –<br>
making a conference that's lean, can run effectively on a team of<br>
absolute bare minimum size, and doesn't seem to lead to organiser<br>
burnout (one of the 2010-2011 lead organisers is still on our team as<br>
programme chair; the other still contributes regularly and<br>
constructively to our internal discussions). Just because LCA thinks<br>
it has collected wisdom, it doesn't mean that everything it has<br>
collected along the years is actually wise.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> And LCA has a reputation to maintain, a history of doing certain things.<br>
> No-one would say that turning off the conference wifi would be a bold step<br>
> forward in making the conference simpler. Change happens, but with something<br>
> as complex, interconnected and multi-faceted as LCA it happens slowly.<br>
<br>
</div>Likewise, nobody would say that turning the Wifi off would be a sensible step.<br>
<br>
Some parts of the conference are necessary, some aren't.<br>
<br>
We should look to the future of the conference with a critical eye –<br>
figure out what's important, and what isn't.<br>
<br>
<br>
Perhaps it's time LCA had a radical change to see what's broken and<br>
what doesn't need fixing? (Not that that should happen for 2013, as I<br>
think your conference is going to be epic! I just shudder to think of<br>
who's going to have to attempt to top that. So far, nobody wants to.)<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
--Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
--Christopher Neugebauer<br>
<br>
Jabber: <a href="mailto:chrisjrn@gmail.com">chrisjrn@gmail.com</a> -- IRC: chrisjrn on <a href="http://irc.freenode.net" target="_blank">irc.freenode.net</a> --<br>
AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: <a href="mailto:chris@neugebauer.id.au">chris@neugebauer.id.au</a> -- WWW:<br>
<a href="http://chris.neugebauer.id.au" target="_blank">http://chris.neugebauer.id.au</a> -- Twitter/Identi.ca: @chrisjrn<br>
<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Refactor. Engage | Succeed | Repeat</div>tel: +61 (0)7 5668 3424<div>mob: +61 (0)414 464564</div><div>web: <a href="http://refactor.com.au" target="_blank">refactor.com.au</a><br>
<div><br></div></div><br>
</div></div>