XSF logo Summits, Conferences and Meetups workgroup - 2019-09-24


  1. daniel has joined
  2. daniel has left
  3. daniel has joined
  4. pep. Because I still think it's relevant. I'm not even sure why you mind, you're not part of these teams.
  5. ralphm pep.: I am on SCAM. If that is not noted somewhere, that's a factual error.
  6. pep. It isn't indeed
  7. pep. https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/scam-team.html
  8. pep. It'd be great if you could PR against that
  9. ralphm Also, since I am a board member, and board appoints these teams, I kinda should have an opinion.
  10. pep. I'm not sure why you have such a strong opinion about it though. I mean you can see chats in both rooms overlapping on a regular basis (when they're active)
  11. pep. Maybe we can just have one outreach@ room and still two teams. I don't especially see the point in splitting when there's already not that many people involved. Sure there can be different jobs in there and not everybody has to do everything
  12. ralphm The goal of the two teams is separate. One is for doing the organisational bits around events, and was primarily created to give the group of people involved with the Summit and FOSDEM a structure and budget to work within. The other was (re)created later to handle communications (blog, news letters, Twitter, marketing materials). Of course the former needs the latter. Teams can work together, and the fact that some members are in both makes that easier, but other tasks, mainly those for organizing bigger events, are really a different thing.
  13. ralphm As an example, Guus and I take care of arranging transport (Van, taxi for dinner), food (lunch at summit, dinner), hotel discounts, summit venue, material storage, etc., etc.
  14. pep. Yes so you don't want to do commteam bits, that's fine. I don't think the goals of these teams are really separate, even if it might be the case on paper.
  15. SouL I would say verbs are different for each team, one would be organize and the other would be promote, something like this
  16. ralphm Yes
  17. pep. Both are about outreach
  18. pep. And both overlap very often. One probably doesn't function without the other
  19. ralphm Yes, you can take different views on this. I believe in small effective teams, and think the separation makes sense as currently split.
  20. ralphm If you are saying that this team is doing too much of what should be done by the other, I probably agree.
  21. pep. That's not what saying no
  22. pep. I'm not trying to point fingers
  23. ralphm If we need a flyer or informational banner or something for FOSDEM, I'd ask commteam.
  24. ralphm I meant "you", not you personally.
  25. ralphm And I suppose I am biased by experience in several other organisations that merging organisational and communication activities results in a too broad spectrum of tasks to be effective.
  26. pep. hmm, COM8 is also supposed to be in the team.
  27. SouL He requested to join but I haven't seen him on here since before his request, I think. I talked with him via email but that's it :) I don't know how is he doing or anything
  28. pep. I poked him
  29. pep. > ralphm> Also, since I am a board member, and board appoints these teams, I kinda should have an opinion. I think I'd like to change that somehow. I don't mean you, but maybe have subteams, appointed by parent teams rather. And then reorganizing etc. would be done internally, with no need for board to barge in. Always within the scope of the parent team obviously
  30. ralphm I honestly don't see a problem in need of fixing.
  31. pep. Have you been plainly ignoring all I said above?
  32. pep. I see a problem. You might not think it's worth fixing, but that's different from you not seeing a problem at all
  33. ralphm No, I just don't agree. That's not the same as ignoring.
  34. SouL In which sense do the teams overlap, pep.? The truth is, we haven't had this issue before, so maybe something changed?
  35. SouL Or what is the problem