On 4/18/2016 12:47 PM, Ian Finder wrote:
Evan Koblentz wrote:
No, if someone wants to have a new Festival in their area then *we
(Vintage Computer Federation) would run it* with local assistance.
---
The tone here seems awfully heavy-handed.
I am assuming Evan's just short on sleep at present, and that the
response would be more diplomatic if not for recent events. But, if
that is the will and perspective of the foundation board, I can
definitely see problems.
VCF is a good name, to be sure, but I think you are correct that a show
could call itself "Classic Computer Fest" and have similar crowds.
Heck, most of the folks know the MW show as the ECCC (which technically
stands for Emergency Commodore Commodore Computer) which proves that the
name has limited value other than it's a placeholder to mark the date(s)
A larger concern for me would be what is implied in the "VCF would 'run'
it...". For instance, while I do not begrudge the VCF East config per
se, it's tough for a combo exhibitor/vendor, and I know that's not going
to change, as per the board's wishes. Still, calling a hobbyist who
sells some of his creations a vendor is a dubious distinction, in my
opinion, since no one is making much money on these things, it's just a
service for fellow enthusiasts. All of the other shows I attend (like
the upcoming CocoFEST!) make no distinction. Thus, if VCF running the
show means that all future shows have to have a separate vendor area,
that would detract from my attendance. I realize I'm just one
enthusiast, but I feel it's useful to share at least my opinion.
I also think it would be a mistake to make all the shows too
"homogenized" in format, if that's a goal in this directive. Some folks
attend multiple shows, and the variety I think would be of benefit.
Jim
