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.
I believe that this year's Pycon organizers suffered from inexperience and naivete, because they didn't know that some vendors will ask for anything just to see how far they can push it. And that it's a negotiation, that you must push back rather than give in just because the conference might get some money for it. More importantly, that the imperative to grow Pycon does not mean "at all costs." I've already spoken to more than one vendor who was dismayed by the state of things, so we are not talking about all vendors here by any means.
At first the morning plenary sessions -- where the entire conference audience was in a single room -- just seemed a bit commercial. But then I slowly figured out that the so-called "diamond keynotes" were actually sold to vendors. It must have sounded great to some vendors: you get to pitch to everyone and nothing else is going on so the audience is trapped.
But it gets worse. The lightning talks, traditionally the best, newest and edgiest part of the conference, were also sold like commercial air time. Vendors were guaranteed first pick on lightning talk slots, and we in the audience, expectantly looking forward to interesting and entertaining content, again started to feel like things were awfully commercial. And what seemed like a good idea, moving lightning talks into plenary sessions with no competition, began to look like another way to deliver a captive audience to vendors.
What was supremely frustrating was discovering that the people wanting to give REAL lightning talks had been pushed off the end of the list by this guarantee to vendors. We didn't get to see the good stuff, the real stuff, because that time had been sold.
On top of that, the quality of the presentations was unusually low. I'd say that 80% were not worth going to -- there were definitely some good ones, but it was a lot of pain to discover them.
In my opinion, open spaces should have had greater status and billing, with eyes-forward talks and vendor sessions offered only as possible alternatives. Especially, vendor sessions should not be presented as "keynotes" during plenary sessions. I think it took a little while for people to catch on to the idea that they could have control of their own experience through the open spaces and that the main offerings were not the only option.
The worst thing about the whole experience was the feeling that someone was trying to trick me and control me into watching these things, presenting them under the guise of real keynotes and real lightning talks. My trust has been violated. I paid a lot, in both money and time, to be at this conference just to be herded into a room and have my eyeballs sold to the highest bidder. And it's going to bug me, especially when I think about coming back next year. I'm going to need a lot of reassurance that this isn't going to happen again.
I think a lot of people have been caught up in the idea that we need to commercialize Python, and ride some kind of wave of publicity the way that Java and C# and Rails seem to have done. This kind of thinking leads to bad, impulsive decisions that can have long-lasting or even permanent negative impacts on the community. Maybe things don't seem to be happening fast enough in comparison with those commercial endeavors, but this is a grass-roots movement. It's never been about moving as fast as you can. It's always been about vision, not tactics. For many, it's fun and exciting and really important to "catch the wave," but the wave passes and then you've just exhausted yourself chasing a brief bump in the water. Python may not have caught any particular wave, but it's always grown, steadily.
I know what the argument for the results of Pycon 2008 will be: we needed the money. My answer: it's not worth it. If this is what you have to do to grow the conference, then don't. If the choice is between selling my experience to vendors and reducing the size of the conference, then cut the size of the conference. Keep the quality of my experience as the primary decision criteria, or I'll stop coming.
Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> writes: > My trust has been violated. I paid a lot, in both money and time, to > be at this conference just to be herded into a room and have my > eyeballs sold to the highest bidder.
Hear hear.
Conference organisers, past and future, take note: Attention of attendees is *not* a commodity to be traded. Just because some parties will pay significant sums for that, it is *not* your place to sell it to them.
Your place as conference organisers, rather, is to provide value to paying attendees. Their trust is hard earned, and easily lost.
-- \ "Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at | `\ me: I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme | _o__) poverty." -- Groucho Marx | Ben Finney
> But it gets worse. The lightning talks, traditionally the best, newest > and edgiest part of the conference, were also sold like commercial air > time. Vendors were guaranteed first pick on lightning talk slots, and > we in the audience, expectantly looking forward to interesting and > entertaining content, again started to feel like things were awfully > commercial. And what seemed like a good idea, moving lightning talks > into plenary sessions with no competition, began to look like another > way to deliver a captive audience to vendors.
This was my first time at PyCon and when I went to the Lightning Talks yesterday, I was also under the impression that they were for attendees. About half of the ones I saw were commercials. It was weird and made me wonder if they were always like that.
> On top of that, the quality of the presentations was unusually low. > I'd say that 80% were not worth going to -- there were definitely some > good ones, but it was a lot of pain to discover them.
Do you mean the "official" presentations or the lightning talks? I thought both were kind of bad. Jeff Rush was great in both of the sessions I saw and the gaming presenters were also good. But I saw a lot of people who had never presented and were unprepared. In fact, one didn't have any code whatsoever to share and the other one only started showing some code during the last 10 minutes of his time.
The sponsor keynotes weren't all bad. I thought the White Oaks guy was quite sincere and it was cool to hear about Python from the business side. And the Google rep probably had the slickest presentation I've ever seen. In retrospect, I'm not sure what it had to do with Python though.
In article <5bd37c10-af5d-4254-8799-49c762673...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> 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.
I'm forwarding your post to the semi-private pycon-organizers list (pretty much anyone can join -- more volunteers are always welcome -- but you have to join to see the archives) to make sure everyone sees it.
>I believe that this year's Pycon organizers suffered from inexperience >and naivete, because they didn't know that some vendors will ask for >anything just to see how far they can push it.
Actually, it was our idea to offer something in return for the sponsorship.
>On top of that, the quality of the presentations was unusually low. >I'd say that 80% were not worth going to -- there were definitely some >good ones, but it was a lot of pain to discover them.
Just to make sure, you're talking about the vendor presentations, right?
>I think a lot of people have been caught up in the idea that we need >to commercialize Python, and ride some kind of wave of publicity the >way that Java and C# and Rails seem to have done.
Not in my observation. 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.
>I know what the argument for the results of Pycon 2008 will be: we >needed the money. My answer: it's not worth it. If this is what you >have to do to grow the conference, then don't. If the choice is >between selling my experience to vendors and reducing the size of the >conference, then cut the size of the conference. Keep the quality of >my experience as the primary decision criteria, or I'll stop coming.
That was our intention. Apparently it didn't work for you. I'll wait for more feedback before I make up my mind about whether your experience was common.
And no, we don't need the money so badly that we can't afford to turn away sponsors who demand this particular benefit. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
> In my opinion, open spaces should have had greater status and billing, > with eyes-forward talks and vendor sessions offered only as possible > alternatives. Especially, vendor sessions should not be presented as > "keynotes" during plenary sessions. I think it took a little while > for people to catch on to the idea that they could have control of > their own experience through the open spaces and that the main > offerings were not the only option.
This is an excellent suggestion and observation. Sold sponsorships are fine as long as they are billed as such. Labels on the vendor speeches indicated they were sold as ad space would be great, as well as more strongly emphasizing the ad hoc discussion spaces.
On Mar 16, 11:10 am, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip..]
> But it gets worse. The lightning talks, traditionally the best, newest > and edgiest part of the conference, were also sold like commercial air > time. Vendors were guaranteed first pick on lightning talk slots, and > we in the audience, expectantly looking forward to interesting and > entertaining content, again started to feel like things were awfully > commercial. And what seemed like a good idea, moving lightning talks > into plenary sessions with no competition, began to look like another > way to deliver a captive audience to vendors. > coming.
I have a conflict of interests - coming to PyCon from a sponsor company and having given a lightning talk. But I *kind* of agree with you. Most of the sponsor lightning talks were pretty dull. I *hope* mine was one of the exceptions. (Resolver One demo.) ;-)
This isn't new though. Last year (my only other PyCon) all the sponsors gave lightning talks. The difference is that there were more sponsors this year I guess...
Personally I think 'sponsor keynotes' was a mistake. Not a huge mistake, but nonetheless...
> In article <5bd37c10-af5d-4254-8799-49c762673...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> 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. [...] > >I believe that this year's Pycon organizers suffered from inexperience > >and naivete, because they didn't know that some vendors will ask for > >anything just to see how far they can push it.
> Actually, it was our idea to offer something in return for the > sponsorship.
[...] Ashz, thanks for offering some explanation. It is my sincere hope that the organizers will look upon the aforementioned experiment as a failed one. I shared the same perception as Bruce; most "keynotes" and lightning talks were anemic vendor pitches that really gutted the spirit of what I experienced last year. In meeting new people this year, I have had more than one first-time attendee ask me if PyCon lightning talks "are always like that." I have also heard from a couple of folks I would consider PyCon elders who were not happy with what lightning talks became this year.
I was one of the 15 or so persons who had a lightning talk that ended up in overflow for the Saturday talks. At the end of the regular time, we were all brought forward to be told that we would not do overflow talks. Standing there in the huddle, I looked around, and it appeared that we were mostly non-vendors. It was pretty crummy to see that real PyCon lightning talks had been sacrificed in favor of subjecting Pythonistas to rather dry vendor presentations. Some of the vendor presenters even had a tone that sounded like "my boss is making me do this." PyCon lightning talks are the stuff of legend; I implore the organizers to learn well from this costly experiment, and let's not go there again. Ever.
> >On top of that, the quality of the presentations was unusually low. > >I'd say that 80% were not worth going to -- there were definitely some > >good ones, but it was a lot of pain to discover them.
> Just to make sure, you're talking about the vendor presentations, right?
[...] I'll step out and say that some of the non-vendor talks were quite weak. The most severe was a talk on Stackless where the original speaker was unable to be here and someone got up and clicked through the slide deck at a very fast pace. I thought the person had stepped in at the last minute, but later learned that he had volunteered with a couple of weeks' notice. Additionally, the original speaker had Andrew Dalke's *exact* slide deck from his Stackless talk last year. One first-time attendee told me over lunch that he was going to recommend to his employer that they not pay to send their programmers to PyCon next year based on what he had seen in this year's talks. I know that's an unpleasant message, but in the interest of preserving PyCon's quality, I'm willing to be the jerk of a messenger.
> >I know what the argument for the results of Pycon 2008 will be: we > >needed the money. My answer: it's not worth it. If this is what you > >have to do to grow the conference, then don't. If the choice is > >between selling my experience to vendors and reducing the size of the > >conference, then cut the size of the conference. Keep the quality of > >my experience as the primary decision criteria, or I'll stop coming.
> That was our intention. Apparently it didn't work for you. I'll wait > for more feedback before I make up my mind about whether your experience > was common.
[...] Hopefully the surveys and this thread will be filled with feedback from the participants. Also, check http://twitter.com/pycon for some further anecdotal evidence.
On Mar 16, 9:59 am, Fuzzyman <fuzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This isn't new though. Last year (my only other PyCon) all the > sponsors gave lightning talks. The difference is that there were more > sponsors this year I guess...
The difference (from my POV as the guy who helped plan and run the lightning talks this year and last) was that last year the sponsor talks were at a separate time, and clearly labeled as "Sponsor Lightning Talks". A *lot* of folks still showed up, and they didn't feel lied-to when they got product or company pitches.
On Mar 16, 6:10 am, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But it gets worse. The lightning talks, traditionally the best, newest > and edgiest part of the conference, were also sold like commercial air > time.
Thanks for being harsh here, Bruce. I've been responsible for organizing the lightning talks at PyCon over the past few years and Saturday's talks -- where a grand total of four community talks were given between twelve sponsor talks -- was the low point. I volunteer to run the lightning talks because they're usually by *far* my favorite time of the conference. Yesterday wasn't.
> What was supremely frustrating was discovering that the people wanting > to give REAL lightning talks had been pushed off the end of the list > by this guarantee to vendors. We didn't get to see the good stuff, the > real stuff, because that time had been sold.
Tell me about it. I felt like crap putting up a sign-up sheet with four names on it.
Again, thanks for your harsh words, Bruce. Needed to be said.
On Mar 16, 7:18 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> 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.
On Mar 16, 6:10 am, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a lot of people have been caught up in the idea that we need > to commercialize Python, and ride some kind of wave of publicity the > way that Java and C# and Rails seem to have done.
This coming from someone who caught the Java wave and rode it for a decade.
> On Mar 16, 6:10 am, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think a lot of people have been caught up in the idea that we need > > to commercialize Python, and ride some kind of wave of publicity the > > way that Java and C# and Rails seem to have done.
> This coming from someone who caught the Java wave and rode it for a > decade.
Doesn't that make him better to see the problems with it?
> I know what the argument for the results of Pycon 2008 will be: we > needed the money. My answer: it's not worth it. If this is what you > have to do to grow the conference, then don't. If the choice is > between selling my experience to vendors and reducing the size of the > conference, then cut the size of the conference. Keep the quality of > my experience as the primary decision criteria, or I'll stop coming.
This commodification of "eyeballs" is happening in the Ruby community, as well. 2008 seems to be the year of Ruby conferences, and both organizers and attendees have been entirely complicit in the gradual dilution of interesting, un-biased presentations.
As a result, many of the most innovative members in our community no longer show up. This is a real shame.
My friends and I decided to stage a grassroots Ruby conference this summer; it will have no paid sponsors for exactly this reason. We're trying to change up the typical format as well: it's a single-track event, no "keynotes", no schills for well-heeled interests. We're even organizing activities for significant others traveling with conference attendees so that everyone has a good time.
The response we've gotten to this approach has been curious; many people totally get why these things are important, and the speaker list reflects this. However, we've also had a lot of complaints that our event is too expensive. In fact, they say that it should be free, like a BarCamp. Just get a bunch of sponsors, and that will be the ticket. We say bollocks to that.
I'm posting here because even though the Python and Ruby communities are seen as being in some sort of competition, I personally believe that we have more in common (and lots to learn from each other) than we are credited for. For example, the popular Haml template engine is white-space sensitive, and that's a direct nod towards Python syntax.
Thanks for your post, Bruce. You've given us a huge boost that we're doing something right, here.
Tom Moertel organized a Perl conference with an interesting sponsorship policy, that may be worth considering. He posted about it on the reddit thread about this clp thread: http://reddit.com/info/6c9l6/comments/c03gli2 .
(Disclaimer: I have no idea if that would work for pycon at all or in part, I'm just posting it because I found it thought-provoking.)
On Mar 16, 2:48 pm, Pete Forde <p...@unspace.ca> wrote:
> My friends and I decided to stage a grassroots Ruby conference this > summer; it will have no paid sponsors for exactly this reason. We're > trying to change up the typical format as well: it's a single-track > event, no "keynotes", no schills for well-heeled interests. We're even > organizing activities for significant others traveling with conference > attendees so that everyone has a good time.
> The response we've gotten to this approach has been curious; many > people totally get why these things are important, and the speaker > list reflects this. However, we've also had a lot of complaints that > our event is too expensive. In fact, they say that it should be free, > like a BarCamp. Just get a bunch of sponsors, and that will be the > ticket. We say bollocks to that.
I've been running open spaces conferences for the past few years and I would suggest you do that instead of an "eyes-forward" conference. It's not only a lot easier, but it's also a lot more fun. For example, last week we did the Java Posse Roundup, which is all open-spaces.
The way we've handled "sponsorship" for the Roundup is "swag only." If sponsors want to send gifts, then we'll give them out, but we don't take money. Everybody seems pretty happy with that arrangement and it doesn't feel intrusive in the least. So you might consider that.
Because of requests I've had (before Pycon started) we are planning a small open-spaces conference on Python, this summer in Crested Butte. The dates haven't been set yet but I'll announce them on my weblog and elsewhere. It will follow the format of lightning talks to kick off, then all open spaces (plus the usual hikes and barbeques). And swag- only contributions from vendors, although that usually just happens via people who happen to work for vendors, who are coming as participants and find out they can contribute something else.
> I'm posting here because even though the Python and Ruby communities > are seen as being in some sort of competition, I personally believe > that we have more in common (and lots to learn from each other) than > we are credited for. For example, the popular Haml template engine is > white-space sensitive, and that's a direct nod towards Python syntax.
I think Ruby has done a lot to push the idea of dynamic languages for medium and large scale projects and to help recover from the bad experience many had when they tried to push Perl too far.
> Thanks for your post, Bruce. You've given us a huge boost that we're > doing something right, here.
I'm sure your conference will be great because you're making it totally attendee-focused.
In article <5bd37c10-af5d-4254-8799-49c762673...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the following seems unnecessarily harsh, it was even more harsh for
.....
As a relative noob to the Python world, (and lurker to the list :) ) I can't speak to differences from previous years. However, my impressions as a first-timer are much in alignment with you Bruce. Many lightening talk seemed to me to be more about recruiting than selling though.
Whereas I might have been discovering a vendor for the first time in a lightening talk, it wasn't a particularly good use of my time here. I'll FIND the commercial vendor, because, if they have a good product, word will get around, aided by their web presence, and formidable advertising budget.
On the other hand, bleeding edge use of Python in a lab on a distant continent (just for example) is going to be much harder to both discover, much less get the added bonus of face-to-face time with the developer!
That said, I thank the organizers, and welcome the new friendships made at this event, and hope like hell I can come next year!!
> > On Mar 16, 6:10 am, Bruce Eckel <lists.ec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think a lot of people have been caught up in the idea that we need > > > to commercialize Python, and ride some kind of wave of publicity the > > > way that Java and C# and Rails seem to have done.
> > This coming from someone who caught the Java wave and rode it for a > > decade.
> Doesn't that make him better to see the problems with it?
Sure, but he dumped C++ (a truly non-commercial language) like a bad habit for the latest silver bullet ten years ago. Complaints against Java's commercial nature now ring a bit hollow.
>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.
Let's leave aside the issue of how sponsor talks were handled: assuming that there's general agreement that this year was a failed experiment, fixing it is easy.
What you're bringing up here is a much more difficult issue, and it is, in the end, not a solvable issue in the general case. For starters, speaking as someone who has been going to science fiction conventions for more than twenty years, there will inevitably be plenty of people like your cadre. I rarely go to organized programming anymore, but I still have a great time because I'm seeing all my friends. PyCon is a similar community-oriented event.
Moreover, PyCon's success rests on many legs: tutorials, Open Space, Lightning Talks, formal presentations, keynotes, and sprinting. That's aside from the myriad opportunities to network with people.
Finally, trying to satisfy a thousand people is impossible. People who want to emphasize specific topics (e.g. an academic track) will need to start organizing other kinds of Python conferences.
Now the rant:
If you did not like the programming this year (aside from the sponsor talks) and you did not participate in organizing PyCon or in delivering presentations, it is YOUR FAULT. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT!
PyCon is built on the backs of its volunteers. I personally spent more than twenty hours just doing Program Committee work. We rejected half the proposals that we received, simply due to lack of space. We had difficulty evaluating some proposals because nobody on the PC had subject matter expertise.
None of the speakers received any kind of honorarium. Except for keynote speakers (e.g. Ivan Krstic), no speakers received free registration unless they requested financial aid.
There are no requirements for volunteering other than a willingness to volunteer and a modicum of courtesy in working with people.
PyCon is what YOU make of it. If you want to change PyCon, propose a presentation or join the conference committee (concom) -- the latter only requires signing up for the pycon-organizers mailing list.
This doesn't mean that we are uninterested in feedback. We love feedback. But there are stark limits to what we can do unless people get involved and push their pet projects. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
On 17 Mar, 01:09, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> PyCon is what YOU make of it. If you want to change PyCon, propose a > presentation or join the conference committee (concom) -- the latter only > requires signing up for the pycon-organizers mailing list.
> This doesn't mean that we are uninterested in feedback. We love > feedback. But there are stark limits to what we can do unless people get > involved and push their pet projects.
The same rules apply for most of the other Python conferences, too. Apologies to Aahz for hijacking his rant, but for anyone interested in enhancing the EuroPython 2008 experience, the advice is fairly similar: join the volunteers organising the conference and make what you want to see actually happen. For EuroPython, start here:
Constructive feedback is always welcome, but it's better to change things before your favourite conference so that it remains your favourite conference.
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > I would like to encourage anyone who was at PyCon but has not > provided formal feedback to use the following URLs:
For those who don't like to follow opaque munged URLs from services that give no indication where you'll end up, here are the actual URLs you'll arrive at:
>> I would like to encourage anyone who was at PyCon but has not >> provided formal feedback to use the following URLs:
>For those who don't like to follow opaque munged URLs from services >that give no indication where you'll end up, here are the actual URLs >you'll arrive at:
Sorry, I agree with you -- those URLs were not (and should have been) on pycon.org, and I just pasted what I got from someone else. Not enough spoons.... -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 17 Mar, 01:09, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > PyCon is what YOU make of it. If you want to change PyCon, propose a > > presentation or join the conference committee (concom) -- the latter only > > requires signing up for the pycon-organizers mailing list.
> > This doesn't mean that we are uninterested in feedback. We love > > feedback. But there are stark limits to what we can do unless people get > > involved and push their pet projects.
> The same rules apply for most of the other Python conferences, too. > Apologies to Aahz for hijacking his rant, but for anyone interested in > enhancing the EuroPython 2008 experience, the advice is fairly > similar: join the volunteers organising the conference and make what > you want to see actually happen. For EuroPython, start here:
On Mar 16, 8:09 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> If you did not like the programming this year (aside from the sponsor > talks) and you did not participate in organizing PyCon or in delivering > presentations, it is YOUR FAULT. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT!
I find this insulting, inexcusable, and utter nonsense. If putting the blame for a failed experiment on the backs of the good folks who paid good money for travel, lodging, and registration is also an experiment, you can hereby consider it also failed.
The bottom line is that the people who are providing feedback in this forum are doing so *voluntarily*, and for the good of future PyCon events. They were sold a bill of goods, it was ill-comunicated, and they have taken their time to express that this is not a good idea moving forward. If it weren't for these people giving feedback, you would not have a complete experiment, because you would never have been able to prove or disprove your hypothesis. In fact, the people in this forum are just as important to the process as those who devised the experiment.
As an experiment, it would seem that having an event organizer, who is presumably interested in the future success of the event, talking down to the people who would also like to see a better event in the future (and think they can make that happen - otherwise why bother giving feedback?), is doomed to failure. Of course, I'm only looking at how the experiment is being carried out. I claim ignorance as to the hypothesis.
The rest of the points in your rant are all pretty commonly known by now, to most. At the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere, and that somewhere has to be with the organization that were charged with motivating a volunteer force, and the organization who set the expectations of the attendees. If you think that PyCon would've been better had there been more volunteers, then you should feed that back to the folks in charge of attracting and motivating said force. If you think it was simply a mis-labeling of the different classes of talks, feed that back to the folks who are in charge of such things. The point is that there are endless things that can be done which are more useful and productive than pointing fingers back at the people who support the conference by being attendees. They help build the conference too.
A conference answers to its attendees, and that should be an expectation of anyone concerned with conference organization. Period. Exclamation point.
On Mar 16, 10:49 pm, Brian Jones <bkjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:09 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > If you did not like the programming this year (aside from the sponsor > > talks) and you did not participate in organizing PyCon or in delivering > > presentations, it is YOUR FAULT. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT!
> I find this insulting, inexcusable, and utter nonsense. If putting the > blame for a failed experiment on the backs of the good folks who paid > good money for travel, lodging, and registration is also an > experiment, you can hereby consider it also failed.
