community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: [ApacheCon] Keeping notes
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:53:26 GMT
On 18 February 2015 at 22:28, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <> wrote:

> 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.

+1...setting the tone is a wise wording, LF should know what is hot and
makes an event attractive to non-apache people. But I honestly also think
we need to do a better job in telling them what we can offer and then let
them decide.

Internally we should do quite a lot more, than what we currently do
(speaking as one, who have been quite deeply involved in the last couple of

> 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.
and we do, but I believe we could do it even more e.g.
before CFP starts sit down with LF, and agree which track titles would
secure the best success...and then later ask our PMCs help fill content
into that skeleton.

> 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.

I am sorry if my use and understanding of the English language caused a
misunderstanding. I believe in the balance, and I also believe LF need to
have a financial successful event.

I simply wanted to make sure that apacheCON keeps the Apache touch, I have
seen too many other events become popular (== financial attractive) and
loose the ground base. This is also why I have been pushing to get talks
accepted for small upcoming projects (an argument which has been accepted),
these projects form an important part of the future for ASF and it is our
"duty" to make sure they get possibilities to grow, independent of whether
is sells many tickets.

jan I.

> Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Bowen []
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:22 AM
> To:
> 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 -
> @apachecon

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message