Hahahaha Oh, I almost forgot this is a dev list.
在 2010-04-02五的 14:53 -0400，Ruth Hoffman写道： > 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
