Ruth, I challenge you to quote where I said that.
-David On Apr 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi Scott: > Thanks that has been my understanding. > > However, David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a for > profit organization. I want to make sure that I'm operating under the correct > assumptions when I make my decisions relative to this conference. There is a > HUGE difference between an organization taking in more money than expenses > and an organization operating as a "for profit" endeavor. > > I'd like to know what David really means by his statement. > Regards, > Ruth > > Scott Gray wrote: >> Apache is non-profit, but the foundation does "profit" from ApacheCons in >> the sense that their takings exceed expenses. This "profit" goes back into >> the foundation account to be used for other expenses involved in running the >> foundation. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 2/04/2010, at 12:32 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>> Hi David: >>> Where have you seen it documented that ApacheCon is an organization with a >>> "for profit" tax status? >>> >>> Everything I see says that ApacheCon is the "Official User Conference of >>> the Apache Software Foundation". This implies that it is sanctioned by ASF >>> and that it is a non-profit organization. Please, if you know for sure >>> where it is documented that ApacheCon is a separate, for profit, >>> organization, I'd like to know. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ruth >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>> >>>> It would be nice if it were that way, but that's just not the case. >>>> >>>> ApacheCon is a for profit effort with some of the proceeds going to the >>>> foundation (in theory). In other words, the ASF gets money from ApacheCon >>>> and does not generally invest any money in ApacheCon. In 2009 I think the >>>> foundation did invest some money in marketing (for the anniversary) that >>>> also benefitted ApacheCon (since they had a party there for it), but >>>> that's the closest thing I'm aware of to what you are describing. >>>> >>>> Also consider that the majority of the participants in the OFBiz events >>>> have been people who already know about and are already using OFBiz. Even >>>> in 2008 with the enormous investments in the conference by OFBiz >>>> contributors, much of which was supposed to go into promoting the >>>> conference but the PR consulting company messed up that year (which caused >>>> them to be replaced), and so even then most of the people attending >>>> sessions were presenters at other sessions. >>>> >>>> Even in the pre-ApacheCon OFBiz Users Conferences there were far more >>>> developers and contributors attending than users, and typically the users >>>> were people who happened to live close to the conference and who attended >>>> to check out what was going on. >>>> >>>> We need something else to attract end-users and better meet their needs. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Ean: >>>>> Nice, but I think you might be missing my point. >>>>> >>>>> ApacheCon is all about telling the world about OFBiz and using the >>>>> immense resources available to the Foundation to do that. >>>>> >>>>> IMHO it isn't really about socializing with the small and (getting >>>>> smaller by the hour) OFBiz community. ApacheCon is for our end-users. Or >>>>> rather, our potential end-users. This should be the place where we >>>>> showcase our wares and not "vacation with a purpose". >>>>> >>>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ruth >>>>> >>>>> Ean Schuessler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think DebConf is a good example that this can be done and done right. >>>>>> I know HP helps out with the expenses of DebConf but part of that is >>>>>> helping fly in developers from countries where the currency exchange >>>>>> rates make attendance impractically high. We may simply not be able to >>>>>> do that or we may come to some agreement about how we would share those >>>>>> expenses for speakers with something especially important to contribute. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the relatively small size of our community, we have a lot of >>>>>> flexibility about where we choose to meet. In my mind, the >>>>>> accommodations should be purposefully modest yet interesting and fun. >>>>>> There are lots of options like that in all kinds of places. We can think >>>>>> of it as a collaboratively planned vacation with a purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure if you meant this or not Ruth, but as it was addressed to >>>>>>> me I should clarify: I did speak up here, but I am not taking a role in >>>>>>> organizing anything as I did in previous years. In other words, I'm not >>>>>>> committing to anything on behalf of the project and I'm not trying to >>>>>>> recruit speakers and I'm not volunteering to speak or do training >>>>>>> either. >>>>>>> Quite frankly in the past it has required a lot of time and money and >>>>>>> liability with no real benefit. I hope someone profited from those past >>>>>>> efforts, perhaps the for-profit organizers and maybe some attendees as >>>>>>> well. About that, I don't know. ApacheCon was a mess in '08 because >>>>>>> people were paying a lot to attend (both the training and the >>>>>>> conference) and yet none of the money (not a penny) went to any of the >>>>>>> presenters or trainers. In other words, the presenters and trainers >>>>>>> were paying to be there and so were the attendees. This culminated in >>>>>>> some fascinating personal attacks from people who attended and who were >>>>>>> not satisfied that what they got was worth what they paid for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just in case anyone is wondering ApacheCon is not the only one that >>>>>>> ended up this way. In another conference I did some pre-conference >>>>>>> training and made almost nothing doing it because the conference >>>>>>> organizers mixed the funds for the training with the funds for the >>>>>>> conference, and so basically I offered training and most of the >>>>>>> proceeds went to subsidize the conference. My guess is that this >>>>>>> happens a lot with conferences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, taking that on just so other people can make money? Well, I'd like >>>>>>> to say that I learned my lesson and that's why I'm not interested (that >>>>>>> would incorrectly make me look experienced and intelligent and somehow >>>>>>> remotely good at business dealings), but the fact of the matter is that >>>>>>> even if I wanted to I don't have the weeks of time and thousands of >>>>>>> dollars to even participate in a bare minimum way. If someone else >>>>>>> does, I'm sure many people will benefit from their contributions and >>>>>>> they should certainly step up and go for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, sorry if any bitterness bled through in this text. I think it's >>>>>>> really just human nature that expectations of EVERYONE involved with >>>>>>> such things have expectations dramatically inconsistent with reality. >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>
