On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:27:27PM -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 09:57 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
[0] and if there was a portion of the bill someone else wanted to pick up - for instance, I recall OLPC sponsored... I think it was FUDPub, back in the January 2009 FUDCon in Boston - there's no "internal Red Hat" stuff needed at all.
We should continue to look for sponsorship opportunities for FUDCon where we can do similar partnerships. Those sponsorships increase when FUDCon results in some tangible gain, be it code or otherwise, that's of interest to a sponsor. If the planning group for a FUDCon event builds an objective for something deliverable like that, the potential's much greater for substantial sponsorship.
I wonder if the community doesn't really see much of a difference between sponsored and non-sponsored -- for example, all of the recent FUDCons have had FUDPubs, so there's little visible difference if the FUDPub is sponsored by another party or not (it doesn't "alter the experience" from an attendee point of view). If the FUDPub is sponsored, then obviously Fedora is able to do other things such as sponsor more people to travel to FUDCon or to old additional FADs, but these are not highly visible or obvious consequences of the sponsorship.
I wonder if sponsorship would be more successful -- that is, more attractive to sponsors -- if it had a more-visible impact on the event?
In the past, we've offered sponsors the ability to have a planned presentation at the FUDCon event as well. That's more visible than FUDPub, since we often don't have a lot of opportunities available for flashy "Have a good time, this event is sponsored by ___" messages, since we don't usually control the venues to that extent. We've done co-branded swag too, such as T-shirts, which is sort of a continuing ad for the sponsor.
fudcon-planning@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Paul W. Frields