On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:27:50PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Conrad Parker wrote: > > A heap of crap > > If the objective of Linux Australia, is to discourage WA involvement in > conferences and in Linux Australia, then I guess that holding a > conference in NZ, is the way to go. > > I know of at least one professional attendee at this year's conference, > who would be highly unlikely to attend a Linux conference in NZ. > > It is difficult enough, to get an employer to sponsor attendance at a > Linux conference, and, getting an employer to sponsor attendance at a > Linux conference in NZ, for an employee in WA, would be completely out > of the question. > > But then, I suppose, this goes back to the question of what Linux > Australia is about, and, whether it is really for the whole of > Australia. You can't please everyone all the time, dude. It's cheaper for the eastern seaboarders to fly to NZ than Perth, so was LCA 2003 meant purely to discourage everyone from the eastern seaboard? Was LCA 2004 meant to discourage everyone not in South Australia? If we go to Hobart, is that specifically designed to alienate everyone on the mainland? I'm on the Melbourne LCA pimping team, but I still think that having a conference in NZ is actually a pretty good idea. If you can't make it, then well, that sucks, right - but that's why it's not a one-off conference. There's one every year! Seriously, having it in NZ services a much larger base who would not otherwise be able to attend, than having it in Perth did, or having it in Broome might. -- Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> "The programs are documented fully by _The Rise and Fall of a Fooish Bar_, available by the Info system." -- debian/manpage.sgml.ex, dh_make template
Attachment:
pgp00084.pgp
Description: PGP signature