I don't think we need to worry about LF interests conflicting with our own. We went through all that during the negotiation of the contract. It's all in there and we have a means to prevent it spiraling out of control. We do not need to, and we should not, micro-manage LF. They need more freedom not less (and we should encourage them to take it). ConCom didn’t work because it inserted itself between the producer and the ASF. We got rid of ConCom because, despite the best efforts of a number of VPs, ConCom just would not get out of the way.
This thread is in danger of taking us back down that road. ApacheCon is an LF event that uses and ASF brand. We look after the brand, they look after the event. Ross -----Original Message----- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 10:29 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: ApacheCon NA CFP closed On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > I never intended to say that we should not take responsibility for > content. I intended to say LF should take responsibility for defining > the theme of the conference they want to market and we *help* find > content to fit that theme. > > I do not agree that it's our fault if the producer does not sell tickets. > It is precisely because a foundation with 150+ different projects > can't come up with a coherent vision for a conference that is > appealing to anyone. We contracted LF to come up with a strategy that would > solve this. > They are, understandably, being cautious about changing things too quickly. > This thread is asking whether we ought to encourage them to move a > little faster. Asking LF to move faster is a good idea, but I think that requires a brainstorming session between the apacheCon organizers from ASF and LF. We need to at least define the limits of what apacheCon should and should not contain. Giving LF free hands could at least theoretically mean a apacheCon with only companies, I do not think anybody wants that, therefore we must set the limits. From my talks with LF they do seem to have ticket selling ideas, but i never heard a them say they could/would define the themes, maybe because we currently do everything around content, from CFP, review to actual track scheduling. I do agree that we cannot make with a coherent vision, that is clearly a LF responsibility, but do not forget their goal is to sell tickets whereas our goal (at least in my head) is also to make sure apecheCON represent ASF, our ideals, strengths and visions. rgds jan i > > Ross > > > Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. > A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com <javascript:;>] > Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 9:42 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org <javascript:;> > Subject: Re: ApacheCon NA CFP closed > > > On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:05 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" < > ross.gard...@microsoft.com <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> > > Sent: 2/4/2015 8:59 AM > > To: dev@community.apache.org <javascript:;><mailto: > dev@community.apache.org <javascript:;>> > > Subject: Re: ApacheCon NA CFP closed > > > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com > <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;> - @rbowen > http://apachecon.com/ - > >> @apachecon > >> > > > > > > -- > > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
