[EuroPython] Work on Call for Participation for EuroPython 2015 has started

[Hynek Schlawack]

>> It’s quite the contrary: the current organizers were criticized for
>> their current work they do and I tried to explain that romanticism about
>> a conference in 2007 isn’t helping, that it’s great to have at least
>> one big European Python conference, they are hard to do, and to the end:
>> let them do their thing.
> I'm not criticising the current organisers. 

FWIW, my original reply didn't go to you either.

>> But apparently it changed into “organizing big conferences is hard,
>> you should do it if you like them so much because it’s hard to find
>> organizers” without anybody telling me.
> Well, if the opinions of the people with experience don't count, or if they do 
> count but only enough for everyone to realise that they're not interested in 
> doing it at the desired scale, maybe we do need to find organisers including 
> those for a passion for seeing a big conference happen.

I didn't say they don't count, I'm saying that's a completely different discussion I'm not leading here.

>> Let me be crystal clear here: I don’t feel entitled to big
>> EuroPythons.  I am thankful of *any* volunteer work that gets done.  But
>> that’s very different from intentionally asking for – or even
>> mandating – a downsize. And that’s all I was arguing about.
> 
> Right. So if we go back to what was actually said...
> 
>>> I'd actually rather cap the number of attendees than raise prices.
>> 
>> I find this an unfortunate line of though; EuroPython is the only
>> explicitly European Python conference. Keeping it artificially small
>> just makes it either less interesting or simply elitist.
> ...maybe we can all just about see that any suggestion of capping attendance 
> might have been motivated by practical considerations. Even this...

That's not what the mail said I was replying to. It was very specific that it was only about affordability of the ticket prices. 

>>> I see this as far more important than having as many attendees as
>>> possible.
> ...makes sense from a purely practical perspective. You can't really choose a 
> venue that's big enough for a few hundred and then change it for a bigger one 
> when you realise that your conference is really popular. And if you have to 
> anticipate thousands of people, you have to step into the big league and take 
> a huge gamble by booking a venue that you then really need to fill.
> 
> If it's a choice between "having as many attendees as possible" (and thus 
> taking big gambles or messing venues around and paying cancellation fees) and 
> accepting that there will be a limit, most people will not take the risks of 
> the former approach. Again, ask the PSF about PyCon 2009 if you don't regard 
> this as a concern.
> 
> So, I think we can all agree that no-one was being elitist at all, unless 
> elitist means not being willing to lose six-figure sums on planning a 
> community conference.

Please do me the courtesy and consider my reply in the context of the email I've replied to and stop extending the scope of the discussion.  I've never asked anyone to take gambles and never will. 

The mail *I* replied to said it would be a good thing *for the conference* to get smaller because we could fly in people from South America and those people are more interesting anyway.  That are *completely* different concerns from what you're bringing up and I find it highly irritating to be confronted with pot metaphors based on that derailment.  Obviously if financial/organizational reasons force us to shrink EP that takes absolutely precedence. But let's not fool ourselves that that would do the conference any favor.