On Mar 16, 7:18 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > Bruce Eckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the following seems unnecessarily harsh, it was even more harsh for > > me to discover that the time and money I had spent to get to my > > favorite conference had been sold to vendors, presenting me as a > > captive audience they could pitch to. > > Ouch. I'm probably one of the few organizers currently paying much > attention to c.l.py -- because I'm also one of the few who's not at > PyCon. We debated this extensively before going ahead, and we decided > it was worth an experiment. If your feedback is at all representative, > this won't happen again, I assure you.
Add me to the list, then, please. I heard from several people that the entire first day was a bit wasted, that even the non-vendor talks on Friday were rather dull and simple. This is my third PyCon, and I've found a reasonably-sized cadre of people who come for the hallway conversations plus a Bof or two, having given up on hearing anything new, useful, or inspiring in the talks. There are several people I know who would like to see a more advanced academic track. > What we were trying to do was to increase sponsorship to decrease > the cost to attendees -- we have NO interest in pushing the > commercialization of Python. Can't fault you for that. But perhaps we're seeing the limit of what that approach can provide. Robert Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
