[H-GEN] People's experience at lca.

[Russell Stuart]

On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 01:45 +1000, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
> [ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
> [ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

What an awesome reply!

> c) In all of 2007-2009 BOFs were a nightmare to organise and next to 
> impossible to pull off.  I don't think that organising BOFs should be 
> the job of the committee but it would be great to have a schedule of 
> free rooms on a wiki or something so that people know where they can 
> schedule their BOFs.  Some kind soul eventually made a BOF timetable for 
> 2009 on their wiki, but much too late in the week for it to be useful. 
> Setting something like this up ahead of time, so that people can just 
> find an empty slot and put their BOF there and then know that (barring 
> someone changing the wiki under them) they have a room etc would make 
> BOFs much more fun.  This could combine well with b)

Agreed. Apart from the Debian one this year (which really a replacement
for the non-approved Miniconf) I haven't been to a "BOF" that worked.
It appears when a group of people get to together there has to be some
sort of agenda - a shared interest isn't enough.  Rarely does anyone
have the time to put together an BOF agenda beyond "lets get together
and talk about blah...", so you all just sit around trying to make
conversation.  Given the limited time available, it just flops.

> f) There is a huge focus on drinking at LCA.  I like alcohol, but some 
> attendees tend to see this as a reason to drink to excess and make fools 
> of themselves.

I am aware this happened, but I have never personally experienced it at
LCA.  Depends on the crowd you move with, I guess.  I think saying LCA
focuses on it is a stretch.

It is nonetheless unavoidable.  For most LCA is an interstate trip, with
friends.  It necessarily involves eating and drinking out, and having
fun.  Some will take it too far, a few will may it the focus it
entirely.


> g) At all of 2007 - 2009 speakers dinners, and 2007 and 2009 conference 
> dinners; alcohol was available in quantity before any food was 
> available.  In fact in the 2008 speakers dinner, the alcohol was 
> available for at least 1 hour before any substantial food was available. 
> In my opinion (despite this being industry practice) this boarders on 
> irresponsible serving of alcohol

The cocktail format followed at professional delegates session is, as
you say, a standard practise - so standard that it has a name.  If the
young professional isn't familiar with this sort of thing it going to be
a good learning experience.  Hopefully, if a delegate does muff it up at
LCA, it is at least a lesson is learnt.

On the other hand too much alcohol at the speakers dinner doesn't should
like a good idea.  Part of the organisers job is to deliver a good
series of talks.  Keeping your speakers away from the booze seems
prudent.

> i) Mini-confs are one of the biggest people-drawers to LCA, so it's 
> sensible to require mini-conf attendees and speakers to pay full 
> registration.

The problem is the standard of the miniconf talks is uneven.  Some I
have been to have been among the best of the conference.  But there are
always many miniconf talks at the other end of the scale - badly
prepared, no slides, no substance behind them - little more than someone
standing on a soapbox.  I would really, really like to see the good ones
rewarded, but the fluff ignored.  The problem is I don't know how to do
that.

> n) Pricing.

Yeah.  I agree.  Pricing is becoming an issue.  I view LCA is a hobbyist
conference.  Many attendees are self-funded.  The pricing, accommodation
included, has to be rock bottom.  If you try to address that by
providing different things to people who pay more (like professional
delegates), you risk the damaging the egalitarian nature of LCA.  There
is no doubt on my mind it has to be done on the cheap.