On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:43 AM, john palmieri<john.j5.palmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Quim Gil <quim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> So I guess there is no way back. >> >> Speaking clearly, I wonder what weight in people's opinions (in the >> polls and the board meembers) had the Qt branding in badge, towel, >> roll-up ad in the main entrance, etc. Many GNOME people said they >> didn't felt 'at home' in such context. But that is something easy to >> solve in future editions. > > For me that was a huge part of it (though I was not part of the final > vote). Some parts felt hijacked and need thought on how to avoid it in the > future. I still think there is value to co-locate but I personally felt > some of the pitfalls I wanted to avoid, such as identity issues got > steamrolled by those who had other agendas.
Thanks, this helps understanding. The decision of putting Qt in the badge was made in little else than 2 lines of an email thread with the organizers, where GNOME, KDE and local representatives were involved. At that time I couldn't care less since sponsors logos in GUADEC badges hadn't ever been an issue. Can you recall whether there were sponsors logos in the badges you wore in previous GUADECs? I don't. The only discussion had been about the logo(s) to be put there. Nokia was deemed as too corporate. maemo.org is actually the logo of the Maemo (independent) community, as Maemo-the-platform has no logo currently. Having all three was not even proposed by us because it looked like willing to abuse with triple branding. This is why Qt was left. That logo in the badge was actually the most visible difference in the sponsors packs between cornerstone and Gold. Qt paid more than half of the Nokia bill so it actually made sense in those days. The problem was visible only when the conference had started and we were getting our badges, and we were just as unhappy that the little detail turned out to be an unforeseen problem. Solutions: design a badge according to your identity needs (e.g. one side GNOME and one side KDE, double paper people can fold to the side they will...) and share the samples on PDF among the organizers and sponsors with time to get feedback and make modifications. You can also make more prominent the conference & projects branding, and less prominent the sponsors branding since the average GUADEC / aKademy / Summit sponsor is quite flexibke compared to the sponsored packs detailed to the millimetre available in commercial fairs. Then there was the towel, which I found a funny surprise myself. If people has more problems of identity with a Qt beach towel than with a Google plastic bottle, that's another thing. :) Also people told me that they were expecting more Maemo iconography present. Well, if I tell you that we sent 3 roll-ups that the organization could only find few days after finishing the event, you will see that we are even less happy about that. Actually I found that gold and silver sponsors shouldn't have many reasons to be happy since their roll-ups were quite spread and relatively not-visible here and there. Solution: put all those banners and roll-ups in the entrance where the "Qt developer" roll-up was and everybody happy. Again, the average GUADEC/aKademy/Summit sponsor would be just as happy since we are all used to be more in the mood of collaboration and co-presence than in brand & product location battles. Have a floor plan where all the locations of banners can be seen. have drafts of the banners shared in advance so organizers and sponsors can get an idea and have a say. Nothing that could not be fixed in a second Summit and nothing a successful single GUADEC shouldn't do anyway. All this makes me think: have the sponsors of the Summit and the GNOME Foundation advisory board members been asked their opinions about col-location vs single conferences? I don't know for companies like Novell, Canonical or Google, but at least for Nokia it was easier to put up a bigger sponsorship budget having one bigger desktop conference in one go. Also why the Linux Foundation (Gold in GUADEC 2008) didn't come back in the Summit? Was this a consequence of the co-location or would have happened anyway with the Global Crisis? And Intel, and ARM...? Are there chances to get them back? And if so, would a co-location help or not? > If GNOME and KDE are going to > have a more united front it needs to happen slowly in an organic manner, not > abruptly with agendas. Speaking for myself and not the board I felt there > was an arrogance in some peoples thought that a co-located event was going > to happen again next year even before this year's was over. It made some > of the important details, such as the badges, fall by the wayside. I had > specifically stated in the initial meetings that I felt badges went a long > way to preserving the identity of each conference. Arrogance? To me the convergence of free desktop events makes a lot of sense... since the days I knew how hard is to get a conference up and running back in 2006. It also makes sense to think that once the hardest first step of confluence has been done, the next ones will follow fixing, polishing and optimizing. Dunno, it's like the Europen Union thing. First you blame Schengen and the euro, but once you go there you keep the direction and at some point you'd hate to go back to national borders and currencies. Keeping the analogy, if you think a co-located Summit harms the local identities just make a trans-European trip. Local identities are even stronger but actually the boundaries are more relaxed and exchanges are much more productive thanks to the new commonalities. Agendas? Everybody has agendas. If the majority of agendas in the GNOME project lead to a separate GUADEC 2010 that's fine. My only concern (as a GNOME supporter, leaving aside my role at Nokia) is that I'm not convinced that such separate GUADEC serves better the GNOME agenda. Sounds like a deeply strategic move has been made based on specific problems with the GCDS marketing, schedule and location. A defensive step back instead of a visionary and leading step forward. > I felt there was also the same steamrolling with next year's venues. In > some circles Tampere was already decided before the event was over and we > haven't even made a call for proposals yet. There was even a proposal that > we not have a call for proposals and just decide on Tampere. Now we may > decide on Tampere but there numerous factors such as some wanting to have > next years GUADEC near a major transportation hub that need to be > considered. So, making brash decisions like that felt like poorly disguised > agenda pushing. So how many teams are there interested in organizing an event next year? Not that it's easy to find them. Vilanova 2006 and Istanbul 2008 had virtually no concurrence. Birmingham 2007 was challenged only by one contender. Is the separate / co-located factor relevant for potential organizers? The Desktop Summit got 3 candidates, being the 'finalists' A Coruña (by the creators of Guademy) and Tampere (first team ever willing to run now for a second time?). I wonder how easy is to find separate organizers for GUADEC / aKademy as opposed to one brave host attracted by the bigger attraction. I only hope you don't mix the Tampere candidates with any Nokia agenda, if this is what you are insinuating. These guys have plenty of genuine energy which is not pushed by Nokia but by themselves. Then again for Nokia and for me personally it doesn't really matter where the conferences are held as long as they are successful. > Speaking for myself, little details such as those and the fact that things > like the schedule weren't fleshed out better made me think we needed to step > back and approach such events from a better thought out position. I didn't > have a vote this time around but I think the board took the correct action > here. Again, I think there is value in the future of doing this again but > only if we work out the changes needed. I feel jumping right into another > one would have perpetuated the issues instead of working to solving them. I don't see what issues can't be solved in 10 months preparing a second edition, as I don't see how having extra 12 months and separate GUADEC / aKademy will help solving such problems. But hey, let me tell something clear: The GNOME project moves forward thanks to great guys with heavy involvement such as the ones that made the tough decision. So even if I personally disagree *thank you* anyway for the extra work and for keeping the uncomfortable position. We have been discussing many times about vision and leadership and the easiest for someone lacking them would have been to just adhere to the limited majority in the surveys. The goal of GUADEC 2010 is clear and now it's time to do the consequent steps. -- Quim Gil /// http://flors.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list