On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:05 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Sally the volunteer can do what she wants > > Sally the contractor has no responsibility for ApacheCon > > We are *not* responsible (by contract) for the content. We are responsible > for *helping* with content. > I understand the difference, but I think it is a very fine line. Certainly we as a community should feel responsible for the content ( since some of us review and create the program ) and should make sure the content reflects the values of the ASF and the great work that the ASF project do. So maybe contractually we are *not* responsible for the content, but I sure hope that mentally/ethically we are. Hoping that a conference producer will just create a conference for us and then blame that producer for bad attendance and wrong content would be wrong. If we don't sell tickets, if the program is not appealing or folks don't see the value in coming to apache con, that's our problem, not the producer. my 2cts. > Yes I believe LF should tell us what they want so they have a coherent > strategy for the event and can sell tickets. > > I realize this is in conflict with what some people want (a community event) > but we have other vehicles for such events. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: jan i<mailto:j...@apache.org> > Sent: 2/4/2015 8:59 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > Subject: Re: ApacheCon NA CFP closed > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 02/04/2015 11:21 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: >> >>> Sally is not part of the ACNA process. Nobody in the ASF is. This is an >>> LF event. >>> >>> We can (and should) make recommendations to LF but we are are not to take >>> on responsibility for these things. That takes us back to where we were >>> with ConCom. >>> >> >> Thanks, Ross, for bringing this point front and center again. It's easy to >> get sucked into the strategizing conversation, and I need to keep my focus >> where it needs to be. > > So let me see if I understand your statements correct, we the ASF are > responsible for content, including choosing which content.......and making > a company track is not to be considered content? > > Or are you suggesting that LF tells which tracks they want and we limit > content to the actual presentations. > > LF can surely help build such a track, but only if we tell we want that > kind of content. > > rgds > jan i > >> >> --Rich >> >> >> -- >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon >> > > > -- > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
