Rich is right, it's about balance. We don't want to leave LF high and dry regardless of what the contract says.
However, I do think LF need to set a tone for the event. What tracks do they want (meaning what will sell). They need to market the event (actually sell it). They need to provide the infrastructure support to enable our volunteers to deliver without burning out. We need to deliver content that matches their needs. We're not contractually obliged to do so, but for the event to be useful to us we need to help. There are expected problems with this approach and the ASF needs to fix those problems if and when they arise. But first we need LF to free up our volunteer time for the stuff they can do that should turn a profit for them and thus stop relying on our volunteers as much. Ross -----Original Message----- From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbo...@rcbowen.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:22 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: [ApacheCon] Keeping notes On 02/18/2015 09:31 AM, jan i wrote: >> >* Clearly explain the role of the ASF vs the role of the LF. We are >> >responsible for content, and only content, LF is responsible for >> >everything else, and we need to stay out of their way and let them >> >run a show. This is hard for us, as we are tinkerers by nature, and >> >so we need to keep repeating this. >> > > Actually Ross went quite a lot further in an earlier reply to > me......where LF was also responsible for "which content". > > So we need to be precise here. I expect we are responsible for which > content in the form of tracks and presentation, as well as the content > of the presentations themself. > > From a legal contractual perspective, LF owns the conference, end to end. We license them a brand, and they are 100% responsible. From a practical perspective, they cannot do that without our help, and I, as a volunteer, have agreed to be their liaison with the Apache community. They want to put on a conference that is successful, and we want them to put on a conference that accurately represents us, so we have a mutual interest here. Just not a legal obligation. So it's an important distinction, but a fuzzy one. So, LF is responsible for which content we run, and they kindly delegate that task to one point person at the ASF, which for this event is me, and for future events will be someone else. Note that we're also kinda sorta responsible for "internal" marketing - ie, to our project communities - but not because that's in the contract, but because we know better how to do it than someone "external" would do it. These are, of course, completely artificial delineations. There is no internal and external. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
