FUDCon coming this summer/fall?

[Eric Christensen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 05:04:20PM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:45 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> To answer Eric's questions:
> 
> Charleston because someone has space for us. We explored other options, and
> they fell through. There hasn't exactly been a long line of placing waiting
> to host FUDCons the last few years. If this goes well, perhaps next year
> we'll have more money to invest in conference space. However, the more
> money spent on that is less money that can be put into bringing
> contributors to us. It also, as Tom points out, is a place people might
> actually want to go in August. No offense to Kansas, but it's time for
> somewhere fun!

Perhaps you didn't have other options because you never asked?  I know of two ideas for a place to have a FUDCon that was bounced around while we were in Lawrence.

People who want to go to Charleston in August have obviously never been to Charleston in August, BTW.  Sure, it's near the beach and there are some things to do but without a good transportation system people will never be able to enjoy them (especially in the heat and humidity).  
 
> As for timing and openness and speed and all that... budget held us up, and
> we really wanted this to happen as soon as possible after release to
> increase the productivity of preparing for Fedora 20. Without knowing
> whether we had any money at all, it's next to impossible to start planning
> anything. I've been thinking of this as sort of the "soft launch" of the
> event. Because of the time frame and because we've already had a FUDCon
> this year, I expect it to be smaller than next year's. But I also hope that
> we'll have a lot of people excited about the change and the opportunities
> it will give us as well as to be able to say "I was at the first one."

Well, it appears that this hardly-any-planning event is going to remove two events from our calendars.  I'm not sure I'd want to do that for a "soft launch" that's just being thrown together.

I take exception that openness was a casualty of this whole process.  I hope this thing comes together well but we can't let this type of thing happen in the future.  We have a process for this type of thing for a reason.  Openness does not have to be thrown out just to suit a timetable.

- -Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
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=4VQq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----