[Linux-aus] LCA2014 update
steve at refactor.com.au
Wed Aug 29 09:42:39 EST 2012
One comment from me on this - the bid process itself is quite a bit of work.
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
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.
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.
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).
is there anyway we can do something like an expression of interest from
bidders before the actual bid?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Chris Neugebauer <chrisjrn at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Paul Wayper <paulway at mabula.net> wrote:
> > No matter how well publicised any change to LCA is, no matter how many
> > here or anywhere agree that it's absolutely necessary to do something
> > different at LCA in order for it to survive, there will be someone
> > who decides that that's their own Custerian Last Stand and will vocally
> > criticise the team because cutting that back is a personal affront to
> > very dignity. We've seen this with many things that are, in relation to
> > getting five days of awesome technical content from some of the brightest
> > people in Australia and the world, trivial. I fear to think what would
> > if a fundamental change was made to LCA.
> > Now, it seems to me that the only reason to try to make radical changes
> to the
> > way LCA runs is if the whole bid process is irrevocably FUBARed. That,
> to me,
> > does not seem to be the case.
> I think the bid process has been FUBARed for quite some time. Since
> LCA2010, we've had three conferences, and a grand total of three
> unique bids.
> IIRC, Ballarat and Brisbane bade for 2011, Canberra for 2013.
> We should have seen the bid pool drying up *years* ago.
> > So while I think there's lots of good ideas in this whole discussion
> > ways that LCA could be different, I think - personally - that some of the
> > voices that have been most critical of changing LCA in the past are now
> > ones proposing radical changes that don't inconvenience them at all or
> > detriment their experience at LCA.
> For what it's worth, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I want
> to run an LCA – not immediately after I finish with PyCon (as 2014
> would be), but 2015 or 2016 would probably be achievable. If anything
> I've suggested doesn't get tried out before I get a shot at it, you
> can be sure that I'll go out of my way to do what I've said.
> > There are plenty of models for ways to run LCA that could be easier and
> > cheaper. Lots of them can be done by the actual team running LCA - I'm
> > Linux Australia would look with interest at bids that proposed to make
> LCA a
> > simpler conference to run. There are also things that Linux Australia
> can do,
> > especially when it comes to reducing the amount of learning each new
> team has
> > to do of the mundanities of running a conference. LA, and the LCA teams,
> > already do a lot of things that make the next team's life hugely easier.
> > These are not to be overlooked.
> Likewise, LCA should be able to learn from what e.g. PyCon has done –
> making a conference that's lean, can run effectively on a team of
> absolute bare minimum size, and doesn't seem to lead to organiser
> burnout (one of the 2010-2011 lead organisers is still on our team as
> programme chair; the other still contributes regularly and
> constructively to our internal discussions). Just because LCA thinks
> it has collected wisdom, it doesn't mean that everything it has
> collected along the years is actually wise.
> > And LCA has a reputation to maintain, a history of doing certain things.
> > No-one would say that turning off the conference wifi would be a bold
> > forward in making the conference simpler. Change happens, but with
> > as complex, interconnected and multi-faceted as LCA it happens slowly.
> Likewise, nobody would say that turning the Wifi off would be a sensible
> Some parts of the conference are necessary, some aren't.
> We should look to the future of the conference with a critical eye –
> figure out what's important, and what isn't.
> Perhaps it's time LCA had a radical change to see what's broken and
> what doesn't need fixing? (Not that that should happen for 2013, as I
> think your conference is going to be epic! I just shudder to think of
> who's going to have to attempt to top that. So far, nobody wants to.)
> --Christopher Neugebauer
> Jabber: chrisjrn at gmail.com -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
> AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris at neugebauer.id.au -- WWW:
> http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca: @chrisjrn
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
Refactor. Engage | Succeed | Repeat
tel: +61 (0)7 5668 3424
mob: +61 (0)414 464564
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the linux-aus