[EuroPython] Revised brochures available

Tom Deprez Tom Deprez" <tom@aragne.com
Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:21:56 +0200

Tom Deprez wrote:
> Marc,
> I reply to you in private, because I think Nicolas is right in several
> ways. Let you agree on some of my points so that I come into the open
> with it.

Oops, well, no harm done, some clarifications:

1. We are a team here (ie Denis, Marc and me). As you see, we first
discuss all points before we go open with it. Which is good, because we
are a team. This also means that all things said by one person is
confirmed by the others (what would happen if we all three should go
open with a different opinion? Correct, more confusion, more flame wars,
more ...).
Therefor, before going open with a new idea, we discuss these points
first. Then go with this idea to the list and then let the flames start

2. The points discussed here are my ideas, not that of Marc nor that of
Denis, so if you disagree on some points in my discussion, you may
attack me directly!

3. As you can see, I have a firm opinion on some points.

a) I'm not totally happy on some reactions and on things which might
happen next year, but if the community chooses for it, well than the
community chooses for it. I would not like to hear on the congress, well
Tom, you did a nice job, now let the professionals take over... and poor
Tom  (and Marc and Denis) has spend all the previous months each day
several hours, completely for free...working his a** out for EPC to
happen (like others I don't mention now). But of course I'm not the
community and the community has to decide. Getting all these
discussions, wonders me if I even want to help next year....

b) ... ah hell, what's the point. It makes me only more unhappy.

Let the flame discussion start. :-(


>> Sure, more support would be good. But starting the organization of
>> EPC2 right after EPC1 and getting the same support as this time would
>> be enough for us to get a better one next year. Time was a problem
>> more than good will and hard work IMHO.
>>> This event was much too much of a financial risk for P3B.
>> AFAIK, you're not P3B. Denis chose to take that risk, he is the one
>> to be thanked for it (and Martijn for the initial idea).
>>> We only reached a break even about a week ago -- that's 10 days
>>> before the conference !
>> Starting the organization of a conference 4 month before its date is
>> very risky and dangerous... but we all made it and that's something
>> we can be happy with.
>> Again, we did not take that much of financial risk. P3B did.
>>>> Good. If the only purpose of the committee was for the event to
>>>> happen and was internal organization, why would we need to mention
>>>> it in the brochure?
>>> Because these guys are the ones sponsors and investors need to
>>> talk to. They do have to know they are talking to the right
>>> persons. This was one of the points we heard
>>> from potential attendees and companies who criticised
>>> and turned down on us.
>> No. You cannot be "the right person" because you decided so. You can
>> be the one that took care of many important issues and has to get
>> credit for that, but you cannot hijack the organisation of the
>> conference and tell potential sponsors and investors "talk to me, I'm
>> the only one in charge here".
> He is correct here. We are not in charge of EuroPython, We can only
> say that we took initiative during the bad periods of EPC1, we don't
> know who will organise the next events. That's a meeting in EPC1. I
> would of course not be happy if a person who hasn't done today will
> do something next year, but if that's the choice of the community,
> ok... so be it.
>> And nothing proves that we need "investors". And if we are to
>> continue with non-profit organization, we could very well name
>> someone to take care of sponsors. AFAIK, Denis found sponsors for
>> this year's conference.
>> If you really want to put a contact, I'm very fine with putting P3B,
>> without any bios or names.
> Let's do this. We're not sure for next year and if we are choosen, we
> can still let the companies know who we are.
>> And I'd be curious about the names of the companies who turned down
>> on us.
>>>> Here are my suggestions: remove the bios and put in all the names
>>>> of the people who participated, in alphabetical order, without any
>>>> details about what they did. If you want me to, I can compile a
>>>> list from the archives of the mailing list, from the IRC logs, etc.
>>> That was the intent of the credits page one the last page of the
>>> brochure. We know that not all people are propely mentioned
>>> on that page, but didn't get more feedback.
>> Could it be that people who contributed early on didn't have time to
>> proff-read the all thing. Is that a good reason for us not to give
>> them credit for what they did ?
> mmm, don't quiet agree on this point.
>>> If you could submit a more complete list, we can try to integrate it
>>> there.
>> Well, if you can "try", I'll "try" to provide you with one.
>>> We can also make the bios less prominent on the team page and add
>>> more names and bios to the support team section.
>> My opinion is "just remove them".
> yup, just trash it. It will do us more harm than anything else.
>>> Replacing the complete page with an alphabetic list is not an
>>> option,
>> My opinion is "just remove the page".
> Yup, we just remove the whole credit thing. It will be just a
> brochure. Which is fine for me.
>> I cannot understand why my point of view seems to be hard to
>> understand... we organized this as a group. We get credit as a group.
>> We discuss the organization of next year's conference as a group
>> during EPC1 next week. And if we agree as a group that you're in
>> charge for next year's conference and that people get to talk to you,
>> then fine ! But don't try to make it look like this is mandatory,
>> that it was agreed on long ago and that not having bios on the front
>> page will lead us to failure.
> That's correct. I also always thought that the next congress would be
> discussed at EPC1.
> Of course that's also my fear. I'll bet that there are sharks who
> think they will earn money etc by doing it next year.
> But again, if the people want that, that we've to take this as ok. We
> only stood up for EPC1, not yet for next year!
>> Another try: what's so difficult with replacing this page with P3B's
>> contact information displayed as it was on the first press release ?
>> Quoting it here :
>> Contacts
>>                   Comit=E9 d'organisation EuroPython
>>                   P3B c/o Aragne
>>                   Boulevard G=E9n=E9ral Michel 1E
>>                   B-6000 Charleroi
>> [then names of contacts per country]
> I do have problems with some people on that list.... Lot's of them
> never told something or don't even know what was done during the last
> months, so I don't think they are good contacts... (and I would tell
> this on the not private reply as well)
>> if you want to use an e-mail address, make it europython@p3b.org and
>> turn it into a semi-public list.
>> http://www.logilab.com - "Mais o=F9 est donc Ornicar ?" - LOGILAB,
>> Paris (France)
>> _______________________________________________
>> EuroPython mailing list
>> EuroPython@python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tom mailing list
>> Tom@aragne.com
>> http://carolo.net/mailman/listinfo/tom
> _______________________________________________
> EuroPython mailing list
> EuroPython@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython
> _______________________________________________
> Tom mailing list
> Tom@aragne.com
> http://carolo.net/mailman/listinfo/tom