Based on Doug's comments, I think a mod_perl track at the ORA conference
would be the best solution. We had our own track in 1998 and it was great.
And, if the mod_perl track got real popular than it could be spun off into
it's own conference.
At 11:12 AM 4/5/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Jeff D. 'Spud (Zeppelin)' Almeida writes:
>> 1) I don't think getting 200 people to attend a mod_perl conference is
>> particularly ambitious at all, especially if it's held in a manner
>> convenient for people to attend. 20,000 people went to Linux World in New
>> York, and it wasn't THAT great of a show.... If you hold a conference
>> where you already have a fairly thick concentration of mod_perl
>> developers, and you get the right people to speak, people WILL come.
>
>Right, I think 200 people is very do-able. I think you're fooling
>yourself if you think that Linux World is anywhere comparable to a
>mod_perl conference. It's beyond apples and oranges. It's peas and
>watermelons.
>
>> 2) What people are saying isn't that we want a huge, IDG-ish production
>> with tracks and a tradeshow floor and catered water and soundsystems and
>> skirted tables. Several people have said they would rather have something
>> along the YAPC model... a small, productive session, perhaps better suited
>> for the conference facilities of a University than those of a hotel. If
>> ever there was something calling for the "KISS" mantra, it was this con. :)
>
>Right. But I'm saying that putting on a YAPC conference blows the
>organizer's mind. Kevin Lenzo, the YAPC organizer, had to worry about
>food, tracks, sound systems, projectors, rooms, accomodation, and
>printed proceedings. These problems didn't go away because YAPC was
>on a smaller scale, and in some ways they became more of a problem
>because there was one person doing the organization and he had to
>handle it all. I'm not saying that a YAPC-style conference can't be
>done, I'm just saying that it's not as easy as it sounds.
>
>> Would we appreciate logistial support from O'Reilly? Of course. Do we
>> want this con to be large enough to have to worry about revenue models?
>> Not particularly.
>
>Actually, O'Reilly is pretty mellow about revenue too. They're
>willing, unlike a lot of companies, to put in time building and
>promoting conferences. They don't expect wild successes initially. I
>know this because of my work with them on the Perl conference, which
>has certainly never been a cash cow.
>
>I'm not forcing an O'Reilly conference on anybody, and I don't even
>have the authority to promise it. I just have the ears of the right
>people and could suggest that they work with the mod_perl community
>to put on a conference.
>
>Frankly, I think your Route of Least Pain (coincidentally also the
>Route Most Likely to Succeed) is to have separate mod_perl tracks at
>the Open Source conference. You'll get rooms dedicated entirely to
>mod_perl, you (or Doug or whoever the program chair is) can put
>whatever talks you want in there, you can have your own tutorials.
>
>You can even have a room during tutorials for the folks *behind*
>mod_perl (Doug, Staks, Vivek, etc.) to meet and hammer out future
>directions and development issues. When I spoke with the conference
>folks last week, they were keen to get more into helping the
>developers of the open source tools meet and plan. There was a
>some-random-java-technology developers meeting at the O'Reilly Java
>conference, where the folks writing the code that others use got to
>meet and iron out tricky issues. They had a recorder, whiteboards,
>the whole nine yards.
>
>I'm sure that such a track might even be called a conference in the
>materials, if you wanted that cachet.
>
>Ok, I'm going to shut up now unless people actually ask me a question.
>I'm sure you all think I'm some kind of O'Reilly stooge.
>
>Nat
--
Jason Bodnar + Tivoli Systems = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
