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

[Mark Ellem]

>> 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.

+1 to this view. The BOF's I've been to have been the same, a group of 
people with little to no organisation and some chit chat going on. Most 
attendees to a BOF are eager to move on to dinner etc. (where more real 
conversation happens).

May I be so bold to suggest an idea for any future bid is to not hold 
BOF's, but instead to equip rooms and areas for group discussion when it 
arises, as others have mentioned. This seems to cater more to the 
natural flow of the conference instead of 'forced' activities like BOF's.

>> 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.

Getting the alcohol balance correct has always been a fine art. My 
experiences at the Penguin Dinners have been the '2 bottles of wine per 
table, buy the rest at the open bar', such as LCA 2006 is too little and 
'waiters coming with trays of alcohol, nearly forcing it down your neck' 
such as LCA 2009 is too much. I personally liked the experience at OSDC 
2007, as Arjen has posted about, as it was nearing 'just right'.

>> 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.

Mini-conf's are mini-conf's are mini-conf's. You will get good and bad 
in these and I also see little way to avoid this. Maybe an idea is to 
share any 'rejected' papers for the main conference with mini-conf 
organisers so that maybe we can get the talks that were although not of 
the standard for the main conf, could be done during the mini-confs.

>> 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.

You are right. I have never had an employer pay for me so getting the 
best value possible has always been a focus. I'm sure the current 
financial conditions have made this true of many other delegates. I 
believe any bid focus needs to be 'best value possible without 
sacrificing quality'. We want to make it easy for everybody interested 
to participate, this includes from a financial perspective.