[Chicago] Fwd: March meeting

[Carl Karsten]

Ted Pollari wrote:
> 
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Carl Karsten wrote:
> 
>> Ted Pollari wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Carl Karsten wrote:
>>>> I have been attending another group that has a similar demographic 
>>>> to chipy. they make a point of not moving the meeting around.  The 
>>>> fact that no one has to put any effort into "where is the meeting?" 
>>>> (both securing a venue, and figuring out where to attend) seems like 
>>>> a plus.
>>> Then ChiPy's long standing habit of moving around brings good balance 
>>> to your life...
>>> More importantly, however, rarely has it seemed like we were really 
>>> having to work extra hard for a place to hold the meeting,
>>
>> That's because someone else works extra hard so you don't have to.  
>> It's a pain in the ass.
> 
> Oh that's a bunch of hooey -- I've certainly organized enough meetings 
> to know that -- sometimes it's a pain, sometimes it's not -- but the 
> point being that the trouble for the group, net, has been minimal.  If 
> it were so much trouble, as you want to claim it is, then why do we 
> regularly have people offer to host? Many times, repeatedly?  And, for 
> the record, I have offered to host @ the UofC previously and I will more 
> than likely be in a position to host in a more central location starting 
> this fall once I'm back in town full-time.
> 
> 
>>
>>> so the above objection doesn't seem that weighty.  Additionally, by 
>>> moving it around, you give more people and businesses the chance to 
>>> host -- some companies, particularly those with interests in 
>>> recruiting, may see this as a plus, when they're hiring (so 
>>> admittedly, not right now for most)... and that's a plus for ChiPy 
>>> members as well in all sorts of obvious ways.
>>
>> It is way more to the advantage of the company than the average member.
> 
> Tell that to someone who gets a job or a cool connection out of the 
> deal.  But, indeed, of course it's more valuable to the host than *any 
> single member* -- in aggregate, however, it may not be that tilted -- 
> really.  Moreover, whenever we're in a new place and we show up with 
> numbers, that helps reinforce the idea for that host (particularly if 
> it's a company) that Python has a vibrant and active local community.  
> That does us all some good and it does Python good for market share.
> 
>> Those business are welcome to come and feed us.  I beg you to give any 
>> sort of stats to backup the gain to the attendee.
> 
> You're really good about demanding statistics when you can't really 
> produce any on your side either 

Yes I did.  In this thread.

Now cough of some stats.

> -- particularly because this is a 
> *qualitative* issue more than it is something that could be quantified 
> in a way that doesn't utterly fail to capture all the nuances.
>>
>> in this case, we are talking about DePaul, so I don't see the relevance.
> 
> No, you're asking for Sully's to be the defacto meeting place for some 
> given period of time and repeatedly arguing against the very idea of 
> moving the meeting.  Therefore, the scope goes well beyond one single 
> meeting.

Wow.  If the tread is titled "March meeting" and I say "we are talking about 
DePaul" how did you come to that conclusion?

Brian asked for objections to having the March meeting at DePaul.  that is what 
this thread "March meeting" is about.

> 
>>
>>> Moving the meeting has worked well for years and I think there's 
>>> little need to mess with what's not broken.
>>
>> We missed a meeting once because we couldn't find a place.  that;s 
>> broken.
> 
> No, that's one meeting.  Stuff like that happens. 

Yes, that's broken, because stuff like that happens.  (this is the dumbest 
debate ever.)

> And, now, thanks to 
> Sully's and a few other similar locations, we always have a backup for 
> when someone can't host.  Problem solved -- so no, it's not broken.
> 
>>
>> I certainly hope Sully's is a
>>> frequent location as it sounds good, but as I said, if it ain't 
>>> broken[1], don't try to fix it.
>>
>> You haven't been there, and yet you argue against it.  guess you like 
>> to debate too.  we should form a debate club.  At Sully's.
> 
> A) You have no clue about where I've been in Chicago.  

"sounds good" implies you haven't seen it for yourself.  Have you been there?

> B) I'm arguing 
> against making Sully's the standard meeting place like you want.  
> and 
> C) I've never discounted Sully's as *a* venue -- I've discounted it as 
> *the only* venue.

If you want to argue about something else, start your own thread.  or at least 
change the subject.

> 
> 
> 
>>
>>> [1] By most measures, beyond Carl's objections, it's not really all 
>>> that broken.  We rarely have to fight to get a venue, most venues 
>>> work well.  Some venues create their own draws, i.e.: Google and 
>>> apparently, Sully's -- but if you insist on sticking with one you'll 
>>> potentially miss the draw of the others which may not overlap 100%.
>>
>> Google has draw becuase it has e-brand recognition and high geek cred 
>> or something.  I think that's the only venue that draws attendees.  We 
>> could of course ask at the meeting: how many of you are here because 
>> it was at DePaul?
> 
> 
> But there's the circular bit in your logic -- if we never moved from 
> Sully's, we'd never be exposed to another venue and therefore you could 
> never ask that question of anyone else. 

Wana bet?

> Moreover, you need to ask that 
> of *every* venue we've been to -- and as I understand it Threadless was 
> a draw for some as was Thoughtworks.  Those are just a few off the top 
> of my head.  Were we to not move, we'd never find the next iteration of 
> that.

I did not object to Threadless or Thoughtworks.

> Last and not least, ChiPy is a community group -- and thus far, I've 
> heard more voices in favor of rotating venues -- and as I said, I'll be 
> trying to work out hosting when I get back this fall.  Note, that 
> doesn't mean anyone's saying anything against Sully's -- I hope more 
> meetings happen there -- but I stand by my point that you're stifling a 
> lot by demanding that they always happen there.

What words have I used that are in any way demanding?

I would say one of us is using "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation 
of another."  but don't worry, I am not gonna call the cops.

Carl K