In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Carl Banks writes: >> On Mar 16, 10:49 pm, Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Mar 16, 8:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >>>> >>>> If you did not like the programming this year (aside from the >>>> sponsor talks) and you did not participate in organizing PyCon >>>> or in delivering presentations, it is YOUR FAULT. PERIOD. >>>> EXCLAMATION POINT! >>> >>> I find this insulting, inexcusable, and utter nonsense. If >>> putting the blame for a failed experiment on the backs of the >>> good folks who paid good money for travel, lodging, and >>> registration is also an experiment, you can hereby consider it >>> also failed. >> >> He said "aside from the sponsor talks", chief. > >I see no reason why the "fault" for parts of the rest being >sub-optimal, too, must necessarily be on the attendee's side. (Just >hypothetically; I wasn't at PyCon.)
Let's suppose you have a group of friends who collectively throw a party. They invite you to help out organizing it and putting it together, but you choose not to. If you don't have a good time at the party because it wasn't what you wanted, I think it's fair to say it was your fault. And I think exactly the same thing is true for PyCon, albeit on a much larger scale. It is absolutely critical to the long-term success of PyCon as a volunteer-run community conference that each attendee take responsibility for their experience. Science fiction fandom -- the part that holds volunteer-run events such as Worldcon -- has lots of experience with this model. It is one reason why such cons make a fuss about attendees being "members", compared to "purchasing a ticket" (which is what you do for a commercialized Star Trek con). -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list