FUDCon coming this summer/fall?

[Jared K. Smith]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Eric Christensen
<sparks at fedoraproject.org>wrote:

> 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.
>

There is rarely a case in Fedora where something is so expedient that
decisions have to be made without community involvement.  I can only think
of one or two such incidents, and they were related to security concerns.

I have to agree with Eric here -- openness and transparency seem to be a
casualty of this process.  When I first saw this thread, I immediately
asked myself why FAmSCo (or the Fedora Board) wasn't involved in these
decisions.  (If FAmSCo and/or the Board were involved in the discussions,
please pardon my ignorance -- I couldn't find any references on the
Ambassadors list or the Advisory Board list.  Not to beat the topic to
death, but the fact that a Board member had to ask on this list to find out
what the plans were says a lot.)  To quote John Poelstra, "surprise is the
exact opposite of engagement".

As an aside, I'll also point out that the short time frame makes it
difficult for additional sponsors to help with the conference costs.  For
example, I've made sure that my current employer sets aside some money to
help sponsor FUDCon each year, but since my budget was set it January, I
don't have anything set aside for Flock.  I'll do what I can to try to both
support and attend, but it's going to be difficult.

--
Jared Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fudcon-planning/attachments/20130417/220143b9/attachment.html>