perhaps next time read more carefully and think again and then reply?
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 16:04 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi David:
> This says it all. No need to defend anything. My comments weren't not
> meant as an offensive move on my part. I only want to understand the
> dynamics of the conference and the ASF.
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> David E Jones wrote:
> > Ruth,
> >
> > Yeah, that's the point, I wrote: "ApacheCon is a for profit effort with
> > some of the proceeds going to the foundation".
> >
> > You wrote: "David has made a statement that the ApacheCon organization is a
> > for profit organization".
> >
> > I guess my problem is I don't know how to defend a statement I didn't make.
> > You're the one who confronted me to challenge a statement that you said I
> > made.
> >
> > Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to respond. Any hints?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hello David:
> >>
> >> I simply would like clarification on your statement: "ApacheCon is a for
> >> profit effort." No need to get confrontational.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ruth
> >>
> >> David E Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
