We have an awesome problem. That problem is we have two potential locations for sprints. Both seem very viable, so I wanted to pass along to the list to steer the decision. One of them is a space at The Washington Post. The other is a space at PBS. To sum up my observations between major factors that I think may make a difference in selecting one space or another...
---- PBS: - Closer to conference - Potential outside space to hang out in - Max capacity at about 150. - Alcohol after business hours only - Handicap access to main portion of the space is restricted to an elevator which needs a security pass - Has tables and chairs. No rental needed. - No special insurance needed. - Extra cost of air conditioning, however PBS team is going to try to absorb this cost
If you have specific questions, please direct them to: Tom@PBS twcrens...@pbs.org thomascrens...@gmail.com (He is cc-ed on this email.) ------ WaPo: - Couple blocks from the White House. It is directly in the city. Walk from conference hotel to metro. Get on blue line metro in Crystal City. Get off at McPherson Square. Walk 2 blocks to WaPo. - No outside space. - Max capacity at 400. - Alcohol all day long. - More handicap friendly. There is a ramp at the door to the building. The space is on the main floor, close to the entry to the building. - Need to rent table and chairs, so extra cost. This has not been priced yet. - No special insurance needed.
The WashPost location seems to accommodate alcohol consumption more readily while the PBS space (with its outdoor area) seems to accommodate cannabis consumption more readily.
At the last sprint, it seemed to me that coffee and cannabis were consumed during the day and people switched to alcohol at night.
Thus, the PBS space seems to more readily accommodate the neurochemical configuration of the Portland sprint. :-)
Also, the proximity to the conference is pretty important, and the existing tables and chairs seem to seal the deal.
Are we still exploring other spaces? I haven't even put out feelers yet, but my friends in the nonprofit crowd may know an awesome area.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jacqueline Kazil <jackieka...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello guys!
> We have an awesome problem. That problem is we have two potential locations > for sprints. Both seem very viable, so I wanted to pass along to the list to > steer the decision. > One of them is a space at The Washington Post. The other is a space at PBS. > To sum up my observations between major factors that I think may make a > difference in selecting one space or another...
> ---- > PBS: > - Closer to conference > - Potential outside space to hang out in > - Max capacity at about 150. > - Alcohol after business hours only > - Handicap access to main portion of the space is restricted to an elevator > which needs a security pass > - Has tables and chairs. No rental needed. > - No special insurance needed. > - Extra cost of air conditioning, however PBS team is going to try to absorb > this cost
> If you have specific questions, please direct them to: > Tom@PBS > twcrens...@pbs.org > thomascrens...@gmail.com > (He is cc-ed on this email.) > ------ > WaPo: > - Couple blocks from the White House. It is directly in the city. Walk from > conference hotel to metro. Get on blue line metro in Crystal City. Get off > at McPherson Square. Walk 2 blocks to WaPo. > - No outside space. > - Max capacity at 400. > - Alcohol all day long. > - More handicap friendly. There is a ramp at the door to the building. The > space is on the main floor, close to the entry to the building. > - Need to rent table and chairs, so extra cost. This has not been priced > yet. > - No special insurance needed.
First understand that regardless of any personal opinions on the subject, possession and consumption of cannabis is illegal in our host city, state, and country (I'm really not looking for debate on any technicalities relating to this, for all practical purposes this is not even remotely OK). Accordingly we as the organizers of a professional conference should not, can not, and will not do anything to support or condone such activity. We're certainly not going to go around searching peoples bags or give anybody a drug test but we will not, without question, support any illegal activity during any events related to the conference.
Second thing to understand is why we ask about alcohol polices at our potential venues. We ask so that we understand the rules going in and so that we can do everything in our power to respect our hosts' wishes and needs. While it might be nice to have a beer or two at the end of a sprint, it's really not the purpose of the exercise. Providing alcoholic beverages is a nice perk that we can some times offer, but it is not a primary criteria for selection. To be perfectly clear, the primary reasons we ask for and report this information is so that we don't a) upset our hosts b) don't violate any local laws. Getting somebody's liquor license revoked is a really terrible way to say "thanks for supporting us!"
To drive the message home, here's my criteria for successful sprints, some of which shouldn't need to be mentioned but clearly need to be included given this post: Abide by all local, state, and federal laws. We really don't need to have the big news of Djangocon to be arrests and/or deportations. Treat our sponsors, hosts, supporters with the respect they deserve. This includes not violating the law on their property and more significantly being courteous and respecting any reasonable request, guidelines, and rules they ask us to follow while using the resources they provide us with. Providing an environment where all attendees feel welcome and comfortable working. Having a fun event where we all make some awesome progress on Django and related project.
If anybody has questions, concerns, or would otherwise like to speak off-list about this post, please feel free to contact me at s...@seanoc.com.
At this point I'd suggest rebooting this conversation and starting over with Jackie's original post. I think we have two awesome possible venues for the sprints and our time and energy will be best spent selecting one and moving on to planning the rest of the conference.
If you have opinions about which venue may better support our goals mentioned above (not getting arrested, respecting our hosts, everybody's welcome, awesome code) please share them with the group.
To that end I'd say I am +1 for the WaPo space. Considering that sprint attendance peeked at 125 last year, the extra space for more people will almost certainly be used. Additionally while being a bit of a trip from the hotel isn't great, there's mass transit access that everybody can use and it can be nice to have a bit of a change of scenery between the main conf and the sprints.
With that, have at it. Let us hear what venue you'd like to see and why.
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Justin Holmes wrote: > If I may inject the obvious but controversial:
> The WashPost location seems to accommodate alcohol consumption more > readily while the PBS space (with its outdoor area) seems to > accommodate cannabis consumption more readily.
> At the last sprint, it seemed to me that coffee and cannabis were > consumed during the day and people switched to alcohol at night.
> Thus, the PBS space seems to more readily accommodate the > neurochemical configuration of the Portland sprint. :-)
> Also, the proximity to the conference is pretty important, and the > existing tables and chairs seem to seal the deal.
> Are we still exploring other spaces? I haven't even put out feelers > yet, but my friends in the nonprofit crowd may know an awesome area.
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jacqueline Kazil <jackieka...@gmail.com (mailto:jackieka...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > Hello guys!
> > We have an awesome problem. That problem is we have two potential locations > > for sprints. Both seem very viable, so I wanted to pass along to the list to > > steer the decision. > > One of them is a space at The Washington Post. The other is a space at PBS. > > To sum up my observations between major factors that I think may make a > > difference in selecting one space or another...
> > ---- > > PBS: > > - Closer to conference > > - Potential outside space to hang out in > > - Max capacity at about 150. > > - Alcohol after business hours only > > - Handicap access to main portion of the space is restricted to an elevator > > which needs a security pass > > - Has tables and chairs. No rental needed. > > - No special insurance needed. > > - Extra cost of air conditioning, however PBS team is going to try to absorb > > this cost
> > If you have specific questions, please direct them to: > > Tom@PBS > > twcrens...@pbs.org (mailto:twcrens...@pbs.org) > > thomascrens...@gmail.com (mailto:thomascrens...@gmail.com) > > (He is cc-ed on this email.) > > ------ > > WaPo: > > - Couple blocks from the White House. It is directly in the city. Walk from > > conference hotel to metro. Get on blue line metro in Crystal City. Get off > > at McPherson Square. Walk 2 blocks to WaPo. > > - No outside space. > > - Max capacity at 400. > > - Alcohol all day long. > > - More handicap friendly. There is a ramp at the door to the building. The > > space is on the main floor, close to the entry to the building. > > - Need to rent table and chairs, so extra cost. This has not been priced > > yet. > > - No special insurance needed.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Sean O'Connor <s...@seanoc.com> wrote: > A few things here:
> First understand that regardless of any personal opinions on the subject, > possession and consumption of cannabis is *illegal* in our host city, > state, and country (I'm really not looking for debate on any technicalities > relating to this, for all practical purposes this is not even remotely OK). > Accordingly we as the organizers of a professional conference should not, > can not, and will not do anything to support or condone such activity. > We're certainly not going to go around searching peoples bags or give > anybody a drug test but *we will not, without question, support any > illegal activity during any events related to the conference.*
> Second thing to understand is why we ask about alcohol polices at our > potential venues. We ask so that we understand the rules going in and so > that we can do everything in our power to respect our hosts' wishes and > needs. While it might be nice to have a beer or two at the end of a > sprint, it's really not the purpose of the exercise. Providing alcoholic > beverages is a nice perk that we can some times offer, but it is not a > primary criteria for selection. To be perfectly clear, the primary reasons > we ask for and report this information is so that we don't a) upset our > hosts b) don't violate any local laws. Getting somebody's liquor license > revoked is a really terrible way to say "thanks for supporting us!"
> To drive the message home, here's my criteria for successful sprints, some > of which shouldn't need to be mentioned but clearly need to be included > given this post:
> 1. Abide by all local, state, and federal laws. We really don't need > to have the big news of Djangocon to be arrests and/or deportations. > 2. Treat our sponsors, hosts, supporters with the respect they > deserve. This includes not violating the law on their property and more > significantly being courteous and respecting any reasonable request, > guidelines, and rules they ask us to follow while using the resources they > provide us with. > 3. Providing an environment where all attendees feel welcome and > comfortable working. > 4. Having a fun event where we all make some awesome progress on > Django and related project.
> *If anybody has questions, concerns, or would otherwise like to speak > off-list about this post, please feel free to contact me at > s...@seanoc.com.*
> At this point I'd suggest rebooting this conversation and starting over > with Jackie's original post. I think we have two awesome possible venues > for the sprints and our time and energy will be best spent selecting one > and moving on to planning the rest of the conference.
> *If you have opinions about which venue may better support our goals > mentioned above (not getting arrested, respecting our hosts, everybody's > welcome, awesome code) please share them with the group.*
> To that end I'd say I am +1 for the WaPo space. Considering that sprint > attendance peeked at 125 last year, the extra space for more people will > almost certainly be used. Additionally while being a bit of a trip from > the hotel isn't great, there's mass transit access that everybody can use > and it can be nice to have a bit of a change of scenery between the main > conf and the sprints. > * > * > *With that, have at it. Let us hear what venue you'd like to see and why. > *
Thanks very much, Sean. I think that covers about all the bases. Just for a moment there I was left spluttering and wondering what our potential hosts might think of this conversation. Away we go.
Normally, I'd be against moving the sprint space away from the conference space, but in this case, I'm leaning towards the WaPo space.
1. It's September in DC. Outside space may be close to useless. 2. Handicapped access is a win. 3. The 150 cap sounds like it could be tight. Even if we don't have 400 sprinters, it sounds like we'd have more room to break out into smaller groups.
We may want to tip-toe around the alcohol issue right now, given the current debate about cons being a culture of drunks.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Justin Holmes <jus...@justinholmes.com> wrote: > The WashPost location seems to accommodate alcohol consumption more > readily while the PBS space (with its outdoor area) seems to > accommodate cannabis consumption more readily.
Let's please avoid alcohol fetishism at DjangoCon. This is a conference about Web programming, not about getting drunk.
I'd like to add my agreement to both Katie's comments about DC weather, and the plethora of alcohol, etc, considerations, as well.
To get back to the OP discussion, I'd say that to me the Washington Post is the better suggestion, based on capacity and easier air conditioning considerations (Trust me, DC in august, you need AC.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we may be discussing a non-debate here. When I included alcohol consumption in the research, it was more of a FYI. It was identified to me that sometimes alcohol (welcomed or unwelcomed) shows up at the venue, and I wanted to make sure that the group understood what restrictions there were with respect to consumption. This intended to make sure that were making decisions that we felt comfortable with while allowing us to operate within boundaries set by our potential sprint host. This is also intended to educate, so that when the time comes we are respectful and enforcing any boundaries that were identified.
If anyone is noticeably inappropriately under the influence at the sprints, I will take it upon myself to have them removed from the building to protect the integrity of the community and the organization that is volunteering their space.
That being said... can we move the conversation on to other aspects of the spaces?
-Jackie
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Christophe Pettus <
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we may be discussing a non-debate > here. When I included alcohol consumption in the research, it was more of a > FYI. It was identified to me that sometimes alcohol (welcomed or > unwelcomed) shows up at the venue, and I wanted to make sure that the group > understood what restrictions there were with respect to consumption. This > intended to make sure that were making decisions that we felt comfortable > with while allowing us to operate within boundaries set by our potential > sprint host. This is also intended to educate, so that when the time comes > we are respectful and enforcing any boundaries that were identified.
> If anyone is noticeably inappropriately under the influence at the > sprints, I will take it upon myself to have them removed from the building > to protect the integrity of the community and the organization that is > volunteering their space.
> That being said... can we move the conversation on to other aspects of the > spaces?
> -Jackie
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Christophe Pettus < > christophe.pet...@pgexperts.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>> > Let's please avoid alcohol fetishism at DjangoCon.
I think the main thing that we need to figure out is if we are planning to have over 150 people. If so, then the choice is obvious. If not, then we should go with the space that already has chairs and tables, so that we can save money and it would be more convenient to the conference.
FWIW, September in Virginia can also be delightful :)
Cheers, Eric
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jacqueline Kazil <jackieka...@gmail.com>wrote:
> When I said non-debate... meant the alcohol fetishism, not Matt's post. I > just posted right after him. > -J
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jacqueline Kazil <jackieka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we may be discussing a non-debate >> here. When I included alcohol consumption in the research, it was more of a >> FYI. It was identified to me that sometimes alcohol (welcomed or >> unwelcomed) shows up at the venue, and I wanted to make sure that the group >> understood what restrictions there were with respect to consumption. This >> intended to make sure that were making decisions that we felt comfortable >> with while allowing us to operate within boundaries set by our potential >> sprint host. This is also intended to educate, so that when the time comes >> we are respectful and enforcing any boundaries that were identified.
>> If anyone is noticeably inappropriately under the influence at the >> sprints, I will take it upon myself to have them removed from the building >> to protect the integrity of the community and the organization that is >> volunteering their space.
>> That being said... can we move the conversation on to other aspects of >> the spaces?
>> -Jackie
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Christophe Pettus < >> christophe.pet...@pgexperts.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>>> > Let's please avoid alcohol fetishism at DjangoCon.
> I think the main thing that we need to figure out is if we are planning to have over 150 people.
Yup, unfortunately as far as I can tell we'll be falling right on the cusp of 150.
Here is the records of head counts we took during last year's sprints: http://bit.ly/I7uxAe
125 was the max and I would expect that to go up a fair amount this year. That being said, we hit 125 for a relatively short peek time and the rest of the sprints we hovered around 80-100 people. To me, this suggests that if all of the other aspects of the PBS space made it a better choice, we could manage with the 150 cap and just get a bit cramped at peak times.
That being said, to me the larger space combined with better accessibility of the WaPo space makes it a better fit, even with the chair/table rental costs. I am completely positive that we can find sponsors who can cover that cost and to be honest there are few things that I can think of to spend sponsor money on that would have a more positive impact than giving us more space and easier access.
Just to add some clarification on the PBS space. The main room of the PBS space w/ doors open and expanding in the hallway will cap out at 150. This would only be necessary when we are doing some sort of group meeting or announcement. It would be a little more on the crowded side. When we are working on things we don't all need to be in that one room. There are a couple of break out areas / other rooms and spaces we will have access to.
What does this mean? (working from memory) There is a break out space that seats approximately 10. Then there is a meeting room that can fit around 12. Then there is a room that is the side of a classroom, so maybe 15-20. Then there is a larger meeting room that is approximately 20 also. So, for a group meeting, we would have a tight 150, however then people can then have a little more elbow room by dividing in to these other rooms.
On a side note, there are meeting rooms available at WaPo. I don't know if they were mentioned or not. There is so much room in the two common areas that they were never emphasized, but I suspect we can reserve them if we go the WaPo route & we feel that they would help us. Group meetings at WaPo would be a maybe near the stage or something, then people could break apart like marbles in the room. If we only used the one or two large rooms, then it would be easier to corral and announce things to people. At PBS, this isn't much more work, but it would be a little more cattle herding.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Sean O'Connor <s...@seanoc.com> wrote: > I think the main thing that we need to figure out is if we are planning to > have over 150 people.
> Yup, unfortunately as far as I can tell we'll be falling right on the cusp > of 150.
> Here is the records of head counts we took during last year's sprints: > http://bit.ly/I7uxAe
> 125 was the max and I would expect that to go up a fair amount this year. > That being said, we hit 125 for a relatively short peek time and the rest > of the sprints we hovered around 80-100 people. To me, this suggests that > if all of the other aspects of the PBS space made it a better choice, we > could manage with the 150 cap and just get a bit cramped at peak times.
> That being said, to me the larger space combined with better accessibility > of the WaPo space makes it a better fit, even with the chair/table rental > costs. I am completely positive that we can find sponsors who can cover > that cost and to be honest there are few things that I can think of to > spend sponsor money on that would have a more positive impact than giving > us more space and easier access.
Well it seems that we have two great choices and that the discussion has died down a bit.
Accordingly I'd like to put out a last call for comments/augments in favor of a particular venue. Additionally I have put together a quick poll for voting on venues.
Please go to http://bit.ly/HpY1ug to vote on what venue you'd like to see for DjangoCon US 2012.
I'll give us a week for final comments and voting. On 4/17 I will close the poll and we'll make our final decision.
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote: > Just to add some clarification on the PBS space. The main room of the PBS space w/ doors open and expanding in the hallway will cap out at 150. This would only be necessary when we are doing some sort of group meeting or announcement. It would be a little more on the crowded side. When we are working on things we don't all need to be in that one room. There are a couple of break out areas / other rooms and spaces we will have access to.
> What does this mean? (working from memory) > There is a break out space that seats approximately 10. Then there is a meeting room that can fit around 12. Then there is a room that is the side of a classroom, so maybe 15-20. Then there is a larger meeting room that is approximately 20 also. So, for a group meeting, we would have a tight 150, however then people can then have a little more elbow room by dividing in to these other rooms.
> On a side note, there are meeting rooms available at WaPo. I don't know if they were mentioned or not. There is so much room in the two common areas that they were never emphasized, but I suspect we can reserve them if we go the WaPo route & we feel that they would help us. Group meetings at WaPo would be a maybe near the stage or something, then people could break apart like marbles in the room. If we only used the one or two large rooms, then it would be easier to corral and announce things to people. At PBS, this isn't much more work, but it would be a little more cattle herding.
> Hope that furthers the understanding of spaces.
> -Jackie
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Sean O'Connor <s...@seanoc.com (mailto:s...@seanoc.com)> wrote: > > > I think the main thing that we need to figure out is if we are planning to have over 150 people. > > Yup, unfortunately as far as I can tell we'll be falling right on the cusp of 150.
> > Here is the records of head counts we took during last year's sprints: http://bit.ly/I7uxAe
> > 125 was the max and I would expect that to go up a fair amount this year. That being said, we hit 125 for a relatively short peek time and the rest of the sprints we hovered around 80-100 people. To me, this suggests that if all of the other aspects of the PBS space made it a better choice, we could manage with the 150 cap and just get a bit cramped at peak times.
> > That being said, to me the larger space combined with better accessibility of the WaPo space makes it a better fit, even with the chair/table rental costs. I am completely positive that we can find sponsors who can cover that cost and to be honest there are few things that I can think of to spend sponsor money on that would have a more positive impact than giving us more space and easier access.
