[Linux-aus] Announcing Everything Open - Conference 2023

[Russell Stuart]

On 13/10/22 16:13, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As far as I can tell there was no call for bids for LCA 2022 at all,
> but rather the LCA 2021 conference got deferred to 2022 due to Covid,
> then became online only for the same reason.

LCA 2021 was run, not deferred: https://lca2021.linux.org.au/

LCA 2022 was a separate conference.  https://lca2022.linux.org.au/ 
Since the team that won 2021 didn't get to hold an "in person" LCA and 
they wanted to, the plan was they to run it in 2022.  But then COVID 
continued, and they weren't so interested in running an online 
conference.  There was chaos for a while.  No time to call for another 
bid, so the LA exec did most of the heavy lifting.

 > For LCA 2023, as far as I can tell, there was a single call for bids

Yes, there was only one call for LCA 2023.  But to be fair, the call is 
more of a formality as teams don't wait for calls.  This time there was 
dead silence before and after.  Also notice during this time when the LA 
exec was supposed to be doing LA things like calling for bids, they were 
organising an LCA.

> Maybe the lack of LCA 2023 bids was raised at the 2022 AGM?

Yes, it was raised.  I recall pointing out COVID hasn't just effected 
LCA, all conference activity is down.  It seems online only conferences 
aren't popular with potential organisers.  I think I said something 
along the lines of "the community appears to have reached it's COVID 
limits".

>> The proposal was formally voted on last night, and I voted yes.
> 
> It seems odd that it was announced weeks before being voted on?

It could have been done differently, and probably should have been done 
differently.  Under normal circumstances it may well have.  But a new 
committee being elected without anybody expressing the slightest 
interest in running the next LCA is not normal.  It is a first in my 
time on council.

You've been on the committee yourself.  It takes time to get your 
bearings.  There were definitely months lost over the first few 
committee meetings while we discussed what to do about the lack of bids. 
  Do we cancel it?  Do we approach people directly?  In the end they 
apparently resolved it by some on the committee steeling themselves into 
doing something themselves, for a second time.  But I imagine that 
decision meant they had to find additional volunteers, potential venues 
have to be investigated, quotes obtained.  I've done all this and it 
took me literally months of effort.  That planning is normally done as 
part of the bid - done in the year before.

Yes in the mean time people were asking what was happening.  But what do 
you say officially, when you weren't sure yourself if this wild idea 
would pan out?

I think they did a reasonable approximation of the right thing.  It was 
not announced until a budget has been prepared with quotes, and 
presented to the treasurer (me, who was not aware they were doing this) 
for independent approval. If you care for my opinion - at the very 
conservative attendance numbers I thought it wouldn't make a loss. It 
was announced not long after that.  Yes, a formal vote should have been 
taken then I guess, but people who were supposed to remember the order 
things have to be done were now heads down bum up organising a conference.

And as you say:

 > But I guess having 5 out of 7 council members on the conference 
organising team makes it easy to ensure any votes pass, so perhaps going 
through the motions doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what would have happened if I has said it didn't look 
financially viable.  But as I said, it looked as good as any bid can do, 
given all the unknowns.   Given 6 out of 7 agree the formal vote was 
more a case of dotting i's and crossing t's.  And they were duly dotted 
and crossed.

 > Is "open" meant to be an actual value, or just a meaningless marketing
gimmick like saying something's "great value"?

The answer to that philosophical question is above my pay grade.  But in 
a practical sense, in this particular situation, I very much doubt more 
openness would have helped. I can't recall what was officially said at 
LCA 2022, but I'm sure by the closing most people knew there were no 
bids.  The seriousness of the situation was made plain at the AGM, and 
if nothing else, the absence of the big reveal of where the next LCA 
would be was a bit of a give away.

I'm not sure what you would have volunteers who made up the new exec 
should do in that situation aj.  What they did do was step up and run 
volunteer to run a conference themselves.  The only other option was 
cancel it.  Yes, it was on their own terms, so it's cut down.  I guess 
that's what they thought they could cope with he 2nd time around.  Yes, 
they changed the name.  But it's a conference name, and in a conference 
name using "Open" instead of "Linux" is a marketing choice, not a 
philosophical one.  Maybe it won't attract the bigger audience they are 
hoping for - we will see.  I think it's worth doing the experiment.  The 
conference content won't be changing - it's been about everything open 
source for well over a decade now.