community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: [ApacheCon] Keeping notes
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:28:46 GMT
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:rbowen@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 - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Mime
View raw message