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

[QuarkAV.com - Hilton Travis]

G'day J,

This is a pretty significant contribution you've made here to this 
thread and future conferences (of any form).  :)  I'll respond inline 
with some of my own comments...

On 2009-06-08 01:45, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
> matheist76 at westnet.com.au wrote:
>
>>                 I would like to hear your view on what works and what
>> doesn't work at an lca. Think of the dinners, the format's etc. I
>> really want to hear from Linux Chic's. It would be really nice to get
>> opinions on what works for
>> the Linux Chic's as all of the lca team are male.
>
> Ick.  I'd hate be viewed as a "Linux Chic".  There's a group called
> LinuxChix, and we have an Australian chapter called AussieChix; so I'd
> suggest dropping a note there as well if you'd like to get a broader
> opinion.  Don't call us "Chics" or "Chicks" and I'd recommend being
> cautious of calling us Chix (either) outside the "member of
> LinuxChix|AussieChix" sense.
>
> I've been attending LCA since 2007.  The programme in general isn't
> appropriate for me.  To me it appears that LCA focusses on both low
> level stuff (kernel development, device drivers etc) or really high
> level stuff (finished applications, documentation, development tools)
> whereas I'm a developer who cares about writing applications and
> libraries on top of (and mostly independent of the operating system),
> which is the stuff that sits in the middle of the two LCA focusses.
> Hence my work with the Open Source Developers' Conference.
> Nonetheless, Mary Gardiner ran a LinuxChix mini-conf at the 2007
> conference and I went along to participate.  2007 somehow bumped
> female attendance at the conference up from an average of about 2% to
> 10%!, and it's reasonable to expect that the mini-conf had something
> to do with that.  It's been run each year since, with similar results.

This is a sensible way to invite members of minority groups to events. 
A mini-conf for, say, folks involved in the administration of Linux 
systems would quite probably increase the numbers of more-adminny types 
at such a conference and give them an option other than the SAGE-AU 
conference.  The same goes for those supporting Linux in the SMB market 
space.

I know for a fact that there's a large commercial monopoly who held a 
"pre-day" for their small to medium business partners last year at their 
technical training event which was well attended.  Unfortunately, it was 
a sales and marketing-filled day with phenomenally little real meat, so 
they copped a (well deserved) flogging for that, however it did result 
in a larger number of SMB folks at the larger event.  Many attended just 
this pre-day, however, because the rest of the content wasn't really 
appropriate for the SMB players.

Holding a mini-conf is a great idea, but if the rest of the conf isn't 
all that interesting to those attending the mini-confs, maybe having a 
special mini-conf-only ticket would also make sense and get more people 
along and participating in the event to at least some degree.

> Still, to answer the question.
>
> a) In 2007 and 2008 there was an easy to find "hallway track" with
> tables, comfy chairs, lots of power boards, and some network cables.
> This is a pretty awesome thing, and space should be set aside for
> those who want to collaborate together rather than go to some of the
> talks.  I was unable to find a similar place at 2009 (although there
> were a few scattered options).

Email is a fact of business life these days and providing Wi-Fi and a 
few cables with Internet access should be the rule, not the exception - 
especially at IT-related conferences.

> b)  Some conferences (for example PyCon in the USA) extend the idea of
> the "hallway track" by providing a big space that is permanently
> available with whiteboards and clusters of tables and chairs;
> specifically designed so that people can arrange to collaborate.  I
> think this would be an especially cool thing to do.  This could be
> extended to be a full unconference running alongside the main conference.

At a different conference held in Houston last July (2008) by this same 
monopoly, which was a more sales and marketing conference than a 
technical event, they had a room with many numbered tables that were 
allocated via an online booking page.  This allowed someone to book a 
table and sit there all by themselves hoping for someone to see (online) 
and arrange to catch up with them, or for a small group to book a table 
to catch up with what's happened in the last year.  Obviously the table 
bookings were all public (as far as the conference website went) so 
everyone could see who was at which table.  This worked well.

> 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)

BOFs will generally always be a hard thing to organise and manage and I 
don't know of an easy way to handle this except - as you suggest - with 
a few rooms or at least breakout areas being made available throughout 
the conference and making these rooms available on a similar page to the 
Table Booking page as I mentioned above.

> d)  The lack of assisted events for regular participants on the
> Tuesday (speakers dinner) and Thursday (professional thingy) nights
> provides a big challenge for those visiting from out of town,
> especially if the venue is not in the middle of somewhere with a lot
> of food items.  For women attending the conference on their own, there
> are additional concerns with both going looking for food on their own
> or going looking for food with a group of men, some of who are
> strangers.  I am aware of some women skipping dinner on the Tuesday
> night (in 2009) because they were not comfortable with either option.
> The last-minute organised non-professional delegates thing (in 2009)
> was a good solution, but suffered from being organised at the
> last-minute.

This is a significant problem that needs to be seriously thought about. 
  I remember in Houston last year the recommendation from a number of 
locals and others who knew the area well was not to let people wander 
through the city unless they were in a group.  Personally, I wandered 
through Houston a fair bit before the conference and never really 
experienced any "questionable" situations, but regardless of how a city 
looks from the outside, there's *always* the possibility that someone 
will cause harm to someone else, and unfortunately the majority of 
people being harmed are women.

We want to continue to encourage women (and men) to attend tech 
conferences and we can't do this if there isn't a safe way for those who 
don't want to attend the organised dinners (such as the speakers' 
dinner), then this could be a major deciding factor about whether 
they'll attend the conf.

> e) Events that take attendees away to a far away place, requiring
> extra transport (such as the 2007 and 2009 speakers dinners and the
> 2009 professional delegates thingy) provide challenges for attendees
> who (for whatever reason) do not want to stay out late.  Reasons can
> include the care of infants.  It's awesome to have dinners on boats,
> or to include boat rides for the speakers (as in 2007 and 2009) and
> they're lovely occasions for all the speakers to mingle; but these
> cause some women (and possibly some men)nto feel obliged to not go,
> because there's no easy way for them to politely bow out early if
> required.

I'll either leave early or leave late.  I'm rarely leaving in the 
middle.  If a venue is away from civilization, then a bus shuttle really 
needs to be organised and it needs to have an "early bailers" escape 
path - even if these folks sit on the bus for 20 minutes waiting for the 
next scheduled departure.  Some folks aren't good in crowds, and some 
will try and find that it isn't something they are comfortable with, so 
need to be able to comfortably say thanks and leave without needing to 
stand on a street corner for half an hour hoping for a taxi (or similar).

> 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.  This was more evident in 2007, but there was
> also some silly behaviour in 2009 too.  It would be awesome to have
> more events with less alcohol.  Or alternately, perhaps, to have free
> softdrinks and juice, and subsidised alcohol.  Even better would be to
> have entertainment options which are more than an open bar (thinking
> the 2007 and 2008 Google parties here for example).  Quiet (ie not
> painfully loud band) entertainment options are a great idea, such as a
> trivia night, hackathons etc.  If there must be a band, it should be
> comfortable (for ones ears) to stand nearby them, and it should be
> possible to carry on a conversation - without shouting - at the back
> of the room. Conversations are why we've come, after all.

Alcohol is always a touchy subject - should it be open bar (open to 
abuse) or have a set cap, or be open beer and wine and subsidised (or 
full-rate) spirits?  How many bars make non-alcoholic bevvies available 
other than Coke and OJ?  And as I'm a sound engineer who works with 
corporate bands, can I just add that the volume level the band plays at 
is often dictated by the client.  Sure, a 9-piece band with a horn 
section can't play at a whisper, but we can play at a decent volume and 
we do this regularly when the client asks for it.  Obviously, as the 
night wears on, the band gets louder as the remaining participants are 
there to party, not to talk (at that point).  But as far as I'm 
concerned, the band, the caterers and all else are there for the client 
and as long as this is all discussed up front, it should be fine all round.

> 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; and it's also a big
> problem for anyone who 1) might not drink 2) requires meals to be
> provided at a reasonable time due to blood sugar or other reasons.
> The ideal circumstance would be to have time for no more than 1 or two
> drinks before substantial food was available.

Too much alcohol available pre-dinner is always a dangerous thing.  And 
there needs to be more than water, Coke and OJ available for the 
selection of non-alcoholic beverages.

> h) As a follow-up to g), meals should be timed for the entree to be
> served before 7pm.  Most people eat dinner between 6pm and 7:30pm at
> night, so that's when they're going to be hungry.  Waiting until 8pm
> for food to start, is a bad plan.

At a conference that's a hard thing to do - sessions don't finish until 
5pm or a bit after, there's always some discussion after a session 
between attendees and presenters, and then heading back to your room for 
a shower and out to an event where food is being server at 7pm is 
really, really tight.  One way around this is to provide a little finger 
food at the end of each final session which will a) encourage this 
post-session discussion which will mean people will get more from the 
session and the conference, they will have a bit of food in their 
bellies before the shower/stubbie and getting to the event, and then the 
food can be served at a more possible 8:00 or so and people won't be 
gnawing the legs off chairs.  :)

> 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.  However they are a nightmare to organise, with many
> organisers not providing useful schedules without a lot of chasing.
> Mini-conf speakers are also a mixed bag, with some putting much more
> time into their talks than the regular conference speakers; and others
> much less.  A possible way to reduce the pain it can all cause might
> be to add a small incentive: if (and only if) the organisers jump
> through all of your hoops by your deadlines, you - the main conference
> organisers - will provide small gifts (up to the number of slots per
> day) for their speakers.  This way the speakers feel appreciated, and
> hopefully the mini-conf organisers will be better behaved.

I called above for a particular mini-conf-only rate and stick by it. 
Sometimes the mini-conf is of great interest to a particular group and 
the rest of the conference may not, so hitting them with a full fee will 
mean many will choose not to attend at all.  I do agree with your 
timeline bonus scheme!  :)

> j) It dismays me that the mini-conf organisers seem rarely to be shown
> the appreciation I think they deserve.  I know that some of them are a
> massive pain in the bum, but heaps of the delegates I've spoken to
> over the years first came to LCA because they were interested in one
> of the mini-confs and stayed for the rest of the conference.  I
> realise that the organisers get free conference entry, and the
> speakers dinner and the professional delegates thingy; but I think it
> would also be lovely to get them up the front at the conference close
> and give them a round of applause.  This kind of public approval
> (which costs only time) is what many of them seek.

It is never a bad idea to acknowledge publicly those who have been 
responsible for the event so people can see why they were always a blur 
or looking like they were about to lose the plot earlier in the week.  :)

> k) If you plan any particular pro-women things; such as putting aside
> a nursing room, or having a womens' lunch or any of these sorts; it
> would be wise to advertise it loudly before the conference.  After
> all, if it's merely an entry in the conference hand-book then it's too
> late to help persuade women to come.

I do like the idea of a nursing room.  Sure, it is not likely that we'll 
get 35 nursing mums at LCA, however if it is mentioned that there will 
be a nursing room available, this may result in a nursing mum actually 
attending instead of waiting for (maybe) next year.

> l) Open Day.  If you don't have the time to do it, don't try it.  It's
> better not to have one, than to have one which is crap.  If you are
> going to do it, contact all of the speakers, mini-conf organisers and
> local user groups and invite to get them to participate.  Give your
> sponsors stands and ask if they need anything (whiteboards etc).  Run
> lightning talks and/or best-of-talks.  Contact your local schools,
> community groups, churches etc and invite them to come.  Advertise it
> to the conference attendees before the event, and ask them to bring
> someone along.  It's a massive chore, and easily a full-person task in
> its own right.  It's also completely optional, so feel free to dump it
> and do something else in its place.  If you plan to do it, include
> your game plan (who'll you'll contact to have tables, who you'll
> invite to come, where it will be, roughly how many tables etc) in your
> submission; don't just say "We'll have an open day in the spirit of
> Pia's".  I worked my arse off for the 2008 open day and got lots of
> negative feedback for my efforts; if you can think of a better use for
> the day, you might want to do that instead.
>
> m) Back to food.  The 2008 conference dinner (at the market) was the
> best conference dinner I've ever had - foodwise.  I know there was a
> large amount of "class" lost, but - as a vegetarian - it's often a
> challenge to get food that looks appealing yet alone tastes such.  The
> 2009 conference dinner was the second best (buffets aren't bad), and
> the 2007 conference dinner the absolute worst (sit down dinner with a
> quiche, how novel!)  The 2009 speakers dinner was pretty low on order
> too.  The event was great, the antipasto appetizers lovely, and the
> finishing cheese platters also good; but the "dinner" for vegetarians
> (luke-warm tofu cubes on a salad of lettuce and spring onion) was
> appalling.  Even though there aren't many of us, please make sure that
> the main for vegetarians is actually edible.  Had the dinner been luke
> warm tofu tossed with fried noodles and vegetables, that would have
> been so much better!

Food is a touchy thing. Some caterers are awesome, some need to learn 
not to burn eggs whilst boiling them.  And there's a whole world in 
between.  Vegetarian meals are - agreed - often things I wouldn't feed 
to my rats.  I'm glad I'm an omnivore as it makes eating a lot easier. 
We do, however, need to make sure that ALL meals are up to scratch. 
Maybe we need more chefs who are vegetarians in corporate catering 
companies!  :)

> n) Pricing.  Your two main competing conferences are the Open Source
> Developers' Conference (OSDC) and the Annual Systems Administrations
> Conference (SAGE-AU).  Both of these conferences include the dinner in
> their cover price.  They do this because it is considered a good thing
> to get everyone together for such an event.  The 2008 LCA did this,
> they increased the prices much more than any previous LCA had done,
> but included the dinner ticket.  There were fears that the next team
> would keep this increase (and increase it further) but add dinner on
> top; and unfortunately that's exactly what happened.  I'm not saying
> an increase was unwarranted, but I encourage you to seriously consider
> adding the conference dinner into the cover price, at least for
> hobbiest and professional tickets.  Hopefully this won't have the same
> result for the following year.

Pricing, especially now, will be interesting.  The *good* thing with 
having the conference dinner in the cover price is that it means people 
are more likely to at least attend the dinner event(s) and eat before 
they skulk off to their rooms.  The bad thing is that it means that 
people don't have a choice of attending the planned dinner.

Personally, I think that if you are at a conf, then you are at a conf, 
and unless you've got friends that you've not seen in years (and what's 
wrong with catching up with them before/beafter the conference), you 
really should take part in the whole conference.  Sometimes, too much 
choice can be a bad thing.  :)  Including dinner in the entry price does 
at least mean that catering prices may be a little better with the 
larger numbers as compared to smaller numbers and "oh, yeah, can I still 
come to the dinner tonight" latecomers.

> Well there's all my thoughts for the time being.
>
>     J

All mine, and more!  I'm done thinking for the day!  (Proof of that is 
that I sent this directly to Jacinta yesterday instead of the list!)  :)

- HiltonT