<div dir="ltr">I've never been able to attend an LCA, and, of course, COVID made that not possible for a couple of years.<div><br></div><div>Also, I mostly sit on the sidelines and read through e-mails, and usually don't comment.</div><div><br></div><div>However, it seems to me, in this case, the LA Council has been less than open and forthright regarding their intentions and motives.<br></div><div><br></div><div>From all the back-and-forth e-mails, a bid was received, and, from my understanding, it was the only bid received, to run LCA in 2022. However, the LA Council seemed to reject the bid without providing any reasons why.</div><div><br></div><div>it seems the LA Council did the wrong thing here. If it was the only bid submitted, but the LA Council felt it didn't fit the need, why not open communications with those who put the bid together and discuss with them the perceived issues with the bid so it could be restructured to meet the Council's criteria and be approved?</div><div><br></div><div>The lack of communication from the Council is very concerning, and then for the Council to turn around and say "We're running something else instead of LCA" just seems at odds with the way things are supposed to be done.</div><div><br></div><div>Why didn't the council work with the bid team to provide feedback on the bid so it could be fine-tuned, especially if it was the only bid received?</div><div><br></div><div>For a Council member to initially say "We received no bids", and then to backtrack when provided with evidence to the contrary also seems very odd.</div><div><br></div><div>Where is the transparency and openness?<br></div><div><br></div><div>If the Council wants the community to trust it, then it needs to build that trust, and these actions certainly aren't building any trust that I can see.</div><div><br></div><div>Just my two cents.</div><div><br></div><div>Anestis.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 at 20:54, Paul Wayper via linux-aus <<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 15/10/22 10:33 am, Russell Stuart
via linux-aus wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">On
15/10/22 08:16, Paul Wayper via linux-aus wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The LA Council summarily dismissed the
bid. No conversation was entered into. We were told it wasn't
suitable.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
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:
<br>
<br>
- We have also discussed the current COVID-19 situation
<br>
<br>
- We would like to extend an invitation to this team to submit a
bid for LCA2023
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>* Notification of start of bidding process.</p>
<p>* Notification of end of bidding process, including number of
bids submitted (before the Council has decided whether to accept
them or not).</p>
<p>* If a bid has been selected, then a success should be announced
as soon as possible (perhaps without disclosing which bid has been
successful).</p>
<p>* If there were no bids selected by the LA council, then this
also needs to be announced as soon as possible.</p>
<p>* 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.<br>
</p>
<p>* 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.</p>
<p>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?<br>
</p>
Regards,
<p>Paul<br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au" target="_blank">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus-unsubscribe@lists.linux.org.au" target="_blank">linux-aus-unsubscribe@lists.linux.org.au</a></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Anestis Kozakis | <a href="mailto:kenosti@gmail.com" target="_blank">kenosti@gmail.com</a><div>- "In Numenera, players are not rewarded for slaying foes in combat, so using a smart idea to avoid combat and still succeed is just good play. Likewise, coming up with an idea to defeat a foe without hammering on it with weapons is encouraged - creativity is not cheating!"</div><div>- Numenera Core RuleBook - Page 102</div></div></div>