I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of this ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I currently write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), and in my spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). And.... So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that would make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user to submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able to hold multiple talks at once, etc. Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe 2 talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person as possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get there on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's talk that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the end of the day (or whatever). Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious all the time." Thoughts? Andrew -- http://www.apgwoz.com
I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so soon, we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of approach. This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things happen. To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know how to run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing tools for managing it. The second day could be something less structured and more self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to get figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, how are insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both need to go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their home thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something that the PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? ____________________________ Sean O'Connor http://seanoc.com On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com>wrote: > I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd > who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of this > ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I currently > write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), and in > my > spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). > > And.... > > So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be > and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned > that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I > wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. > > First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that would > make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to > acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we > should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This > would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user to > submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end > of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as > possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all > complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able to > hold multiple talks at once, etc. > > Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe 2 > talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person as > possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get there > on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's talk > that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the end > of the day (or whatever). > > Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to > include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things > up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at > once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious > all the time." > > Thoughts? > > Andrew > > > -- > http://www.apgwoz.com >
Hi Sean, On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so soon, > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of approach. > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things > happen. This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once again it gets back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know how to > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing tools for > managing it. The second day could be something less structured and more > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day conference! > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to get > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, how are > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both need to > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their home > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something that the > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to take people's money. Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? D > ____________________________ > Sean O'Connor > http://seanoc.com > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of this >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I currently >> write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), and in >> my >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). >> >> And.... >> >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned >> that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. >> >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that would >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This >> would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user to >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able to >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. >> >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe 2 >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person as >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get there >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's talk >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the end >> of the day (or whatever). >> >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious >> all the time." >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Andrew >> >> >> -- >> http://www.apgwoz.com > > -- NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com
> > This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any > money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay > the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to > take people's money. I think it might be possible to pull this of for everything with the exception of insurance. There may be an outside chance that the venue (to continue Dave's theme) will be willing/able to take on the liability with their own insurance. Generally speaking tho, for this kind of event they'll want the organization running the event to handle any liability. Something else to consider in relation to money is credibility and attendance. Often for this type of event, people won't take it seriously if it's free. Making the event free can reduce initial interest and will result in a much higher rate of no-shows. That in turn can make setting the attendance cap and planning pretty hard. I'm not saying that we absolutely shouldn't make the event free for attendees but there are things we need to consider and plan for if we go down that path. ____________________________ Sean O'Connor http://seanoc.com On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, David Christian <david.christian@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: > > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so > soon, > > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of approach. > > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and > > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things > > happen. > > This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious > goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once again it gets > back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. > > > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly > > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know how > to > > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing tools > for > > managing it. The second day could be something less structured and more > > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? > > I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day conference! > > > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to get > > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, how > are > > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both need > to > > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their home > > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something that > the > > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? > > This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any > money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay > the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to > take people's money. > > Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? > > D > > > ____________________________ > > Sean O'Connor > > http://seanoc.com > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd > >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of this > >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I currently > >> write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), and > in > >> my > >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). > >> > >> And.... > >> > >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be > >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned > >> that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I > >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. > >> > >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that would > >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to > >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we > >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This > >> would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user to > >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end > >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as > >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all > >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able to > >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. > >> > >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe 2 > >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person as > >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get there > >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's talk > >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the end > >> of the day (or whatever). > >> > >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to > >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things > >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at > >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious > >> all the time." > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://www.apgwoz.com > > > > > > > > -- > NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org > http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to >> take people's money. > > I think it might be possible to pull this of for everything with the > exception of insurance. There may be an outside chance that the venue (to > continue Dave's theme) will be willing/able to take on the liability with > their own insurance. Generally speaking tho, for this kind of event they'll > want the organization running the event to handle any liability. Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from a "we need to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen and here's how much it will cost?" > Something else to consider in relation to money is credibility and > attendance. Often for this type of event, people won't take it seriously if > it's free. Making the event free can reduce initial interest and will > result in a much higher rate of no-shows. That in turn can make setting the > attendance cap and planning pretty hard. I'm less worried about people taking the event seriously - I'm more worried about biting off more than we can chew. I'd rather sacrifice size in favor of getting something out the door, if that's necessary. > I'm not saying that we absolutely > shouldn't make the event free for attendees but there are things we need to > consider and plan for if we go down that path. I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this up can be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, please do! Cheers, David > ____________________________ > Sean O'Connor > http://seanoc.com > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, David Christian > <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean, >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: >> > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so >> > soon, >> > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of approach. >> > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and >> > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things >> > happen. >> >> This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious >> goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once again it gets >> back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. >> >> > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly >> > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know how >> > to >> > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing tools >> > for >> > managing it. The second day could be something less structured and more >> > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? >> >> I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day >> conference! >> >> > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to >> > get >> > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, how >> > are >> > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both need >> > to >> > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their home >> > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something that >> > the >> > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? >> >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to >> take people's money. >> >> Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? >> >> D >> >> > ____________________________ >> > Sean O'Connor >> > http://seanoc.com >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd >> >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of this >> >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I >> >> currently >> >> write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), and >> >> in >> >> my >> >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). >> >> >> >> And.... >> >> >> >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be >> >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned >> >> that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I >> >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. >> >> >> >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that would >> >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to >> >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we >> >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This >> >> would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user to >> >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end >> >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as >> >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all >> >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able to >> >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. >> >> >> >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe 2 >> >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person as >> >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get there >> >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's talk >> >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the end >> >> of the day (or whatever). >> >> >> >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to >> >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things >> >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at >> >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious >> >> all the time." >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.apgwoz.com >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org >> http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com > > -- NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/
The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup up a meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and pick their brains. Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Christian <david.christian@gmail.com > wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: > >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any > >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay > >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to > >> take people's money. > > > > I think it might be possible to pull this of for everything with the > > exception of insurance. There may be an outside chance that the venue > (to > > continue Dave's theme) will be willing/able to take on the liability with > > their own insurance. Generally speaking tho, for this kind of event > they'll > > want the organization running the event to handle any liability. > > Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from a "we > need to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen and > here's how much it will cost?" > > > Something else to consider in relation to money is credibility and > > attendance. Often for this type of event, people won't take it seriously > if > > it's free. Making the event free can reduce initial interest and will > > result in a much higher rate of no-shows. That in turn can make setting > the > > attendance cap and planning pretty hard. > > I'm less worried about people taking the event seriously - I'm more > worried about biting off more than we can chew. I'd rather sacrifice > size in favor of getting something out the door, if that's necessary. > > > I'm not saying that we absolutely > > shouldn't make the event free for attendees but there are things we need > to > > consider and plan for if we go down that path. > > I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the > cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard > (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this up can > be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, please > do! > > Cheers, > David > > > > ____________________________ > > Sean O'Connor > > http://seanoc.com > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, David Christian > > <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sean, > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> > wrote: > >> > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so > >> > soon, > >> > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of > approach. > >> > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and > >> > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things > >> > happen. > >> > >> This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious > >> goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once again it gets > >> back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. > >> > >> > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly > >> > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know > how > >> > to > >> > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing > tools > >> > for > >> > managing it. The second day could be something less structured and > more > >> > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? > >> > >> I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day > >> conference! > >> > >> > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to > >> > get > >> > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, > how > >> > are > >> > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both > need > >> > to > >> > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their home > >> > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something > that > >> > the > >> > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? > >> > >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any > >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay > >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to > >> take people's money. > >> > >> Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? > >> > >> D > >> > >> > ____________________________ > >> > Sean O'Connor > >> > http://seanoc.com > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz < > apgwoz@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd > >> >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of > this > >> >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I > >> >> currently > >> >> write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), > and > >> >> in > >> >> my > >> >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). > >> >> > >> >> And.... > >> >> > >> >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be > >> >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned > >> >> that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I > >> >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. > >> >> > >> >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that > would > >> >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to > >> >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we > >> >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This > >> >> would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user > to > >> >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end > >> >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as > >> >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all > >> >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able to > >> >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. > >> >> > >> >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe 2 > >> >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person as > >> >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get there > >> >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's talk > >> >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the > end > >> >> of the day (or whatever). > >> >> > >> >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to > >> >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things > >> >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at > >> >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious > >> >> all the time." > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> Andrew > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> http://www.apgwoz.com > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org > >> http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > -- > NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/ >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Robert Hancock <hancock.robert@gmail.com> wrote: > The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup up a > meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and pick their > brains. > Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? > Catherine Devlin has been involved (or started?) PyOhio, so she seems like a natural target. Not sure who else. We should definitely have an open space about the subject of starting a regional conference. Cheers, David > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Christian > <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: >> >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any >> >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay >> >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to >> >> take people's money. >> > >> > I think it might be possible to pull this of for everything with the >> > exception of insurance. There may be an outside chance that the venue >> > (to >> > continue Dave's theme) will be willing/able to take on the liability >> > with >> > their own insurance. Generally speaking tho, for this kind of event >> > they'll >> > want the organization running the event to handle any liability. >> >> Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from a "we >> need to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen and >> here's how much it will cost?" >> >> > Something else to consider in relation to money is credibility and >> > attendance. Often for this type of event, people won't take it >> > seriously if >> > it's free. Making the event free can reduce initial interest and will >> > result in a much higher rate of no-shows. That in turn can make setting >> > the >> > attendance cap and planning pretty hard. >> >> I'm less worried about people taking the event seriously - I'm more >> worried about biting off more than we can chew. I'd rather sacrifice >> size in favor of getting something out the door, if that's necessary. >> >> > I'm not saying that we absolutely >> > shouldn't make the event free for attendees but there are things we need >> > to >> > consider and plan for if we go down that path. >> >> I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the >> cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard >> (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this up can >> be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, please >> do! >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> >> > ____________________________ >> > Sean O'Connor >> > http://seanoc.com >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, David Christian >> > <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Sean, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so >> >> > soon, >> >> > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of >> >> > approach. >> >> > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and >> >> > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things >> >> > happen. >> >> >> >> This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious >> >> goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once again it gets >> >> back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. >> >> >> >> > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly >> >> > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know >> >> > how >> >> > to >> >> > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing >> >> > tools >> >> > for >> >> > managing it. The second day could be something less structured and >> >> > more >> >> > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? >> >> >> >> I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day >> >> conference! >> >> >> >> > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to >> >> > get >> >> > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, >> >> > how >> >> > are >> >> > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both >> >> > need >> >> > to >> >> > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their >> >> > home >> >> > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something >> >> > that >> >> > the >> >> > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? >> >> >> >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any >> >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay >> >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to >> >> take people's money. >> >> >> >> Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? >> >> >> >> D >> >> >> >> > ____________________________ >> >> > Sean O'Connor >> >> > http://seanoc.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz >> >> > <apgwoz@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd >> >> >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of >> >> >> this >> >> >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I >> >> >> currently >> >> >> write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), >> >> >> and >> >> >> in >> >> >> my >> >> >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). >> >> >> >> >> >> And.... >> >> >> >> >> >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be >> >> >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already >> >> >> mentioned >> >> >> that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I >> >> >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. >> >> >> >> >> >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that >> >> >> would >> >> >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to >> >> >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we >> >> >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This >> >> >> would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user >> >> >> to >> >> >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end >> >> >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as >> >> >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all >> >> >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able >> >> >> to >> >> >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. >> >> >> >> >> >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe >> >> >> 2 >> >> >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person >> >> >> as >> >> >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get >> >> >> there >> >> >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's >> >> >> talk >> >> >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the >> >> >> end >> >> >> of the day (or whatever). >> >> >> >> >> >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to >> >> >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things >> >> >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at >> >> >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be >> >> >> serious >> >> >> all the time." >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.apgwoz.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org >> >> http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/ > > -- NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/
> > The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup up a > meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and pick their > brains. > > Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? > +1 Steve, you could probably give the best advice on this. Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from a "we need > to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen and here's how > much it will cost?" Sure, we definitely should see if there's a venue which can make this not a problem but I'll start looking into options assuming that won't happen. I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the > cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard > (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this up can > be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, please > do! I'm not too worried about that. Eventbright and similar companies make collecting money easy. The hard part is having a place for that money to go. Should it go to an individual, that individual takes on a great deal of responsibility and liability. It is also very difficult for that person to continually prove that they are keeping things above board and not doing anything inappropriate with the money. This is why there is usually some type of incorporated entity "organizing" a conference. They limit the liability any individual needs to take on and already have rules, procedures, and tools in place to keep everything legit. This may be something the PyCon folks or PSF may be able to help us with but we'll have to talk to them and see. On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Robert Hancock <hancock.robert@gmail.com>wrote: > The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup up a > meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and pick their > brains. > > Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Christian < > david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: >> >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any >> >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay >> >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to >> >> take people's money. >> > >> > I think it might be possible to pull this of for everything with the >> > exception of insurance. There may be an outside chance that the venue >> (to >> > continue Dave's theme) will be willing/able to take on the liability >> with >> > their own insurance. Generally speaking tho, for this kind of event >> they'll >> > want the organization running the event to handle any liability. >> >> Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from a "we >> need to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen and >> here's how much it will cost?" >> >> > Something else to consider in relation to money is credibility and >> > attendance. Often for this type of event, people won't take it >> seriously if >> > it's free. Making the event free can reduce initial interest and will >> > result in a much higher rate of no-shows. That in turn can make setting >> the >> > attendance cap and planning pretty hard. >> >> I'm less worried about people taking the event seriously - I'm more >> worried about biting off more than we can chew. I'd rather sacrifice >> size in favor of getting something out the door, if that's necessary. >> >> > I'm not saying that we absolutely >> > shouldn't make the event free for attendees but there are things we need >> to >> > consider and plan for if we go down that path. >> >> I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the >> cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard >> (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this up can >> be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, please >> do! >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> >> > ____________________________ >> > Sean O'Connor >> > http://seanoc.com >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, David Christian >> > <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Sean, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference happen so >> >> > soon, >> >> > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type of >> approach. >> >> > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as possible and >> >> > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to make things >> >> > happen. >> >> >> >> This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious >> >> goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once again it gets >> >> back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. >> >> >> >> > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be fairly >> >> > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We all know >> how >> >> > to >> >> > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of existing >> tools >> >> > for >> >> > managing it. The second day could be something less structured and >> more >> >> > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? >> >> >> >> I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day >> >> conference! >> >> >> >> > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things we need to >> >> > get >> >> > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. Specifically, >> how >> >> > are >> >> > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally speaking, both >> need >> >> > to >> >> > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses their >> home >> >> > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is something >> that >> >> > the >> >> > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? >> >> >> >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to be any >> >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where sponsors pay >> >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid having to >> >> take people's money. >> >> >> >> Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? >> >> >> >> D >> >> >> >> > ____________________________ >> >> > Sean O'Connor >> >> > http://seanoc.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz < >> apgwoz@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd >> >> >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of >> this >> >> >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I >> >> >> currently >> >> >> write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), >> and >> >> >> in >> >> >> my >> >> >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). >> >> >> >> >> >> And.... >> >> >> >> >> >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be >> >> >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already >> mentioned >> >> >> that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I >> >> >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. >> >> >> >> >> >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that >> would >> >> >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to >> >> >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we >> >> >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This >> >> >> would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user >> to >> >> >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. At the end >> >> >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the conference as >> >> >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is almost all >> >> >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, we're able >> to >> >> >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. >> >> >> >> >> >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least 1, maybe >> 2 >> >> >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a Python person >> as >> >> >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone to get >> there >> >> >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their friend's >> talk >> >> >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted it to the >> end >> >> >> of the day (or whatever). >> >> >> >> >> >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to >> >> >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things >> >> >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at >> >> >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be >> serious >> >> >> all the time." >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.apgwoz.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org >> >> http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/ >> > >
Sean O'Connor wrote: > The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup > up a meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and > pick their brains. > > Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? > > > +1 Steve, you could probably give the best advice on this. > I think you'd do well to include Doug Napoleone and David Goodger, both of whom have been fairly heavily involved with PyCon. Those two may have other suggestions. I have Cc'd them as an FYI, but don't expect much back right now as PyCon looms and they'll be busy. (They probably can't mail the list anyway, right?) Besides Catherine I also mentioned Greg Lindstrom to David in a separate email - he's the PyArkansas organizer (and his wife runs the WearPython company that sells shirts at the conference). > Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from a > "we need to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen > and here's how much it will cost?" > > > Sure, we definitely should see if there's a venue which can make this > not a problem but I'll start looking into options assuming that won't > happen. > > I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the > cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard > (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this up can > be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, please > do! > > I'm not too worried about that. Eventbright and similar companies make > collecting money easy. > > The hard part is having a place for that money to go. Should it go to > an individual, that individual takes on a great deal of responsibility > and liability. It is also very difficult for that person to continually > prove that they are keeping things above board and not doing anything > inappropriate with the money. > I want to get the PSF doing something called "fiscal sponsorship", where third parties (either organizations or individuals) undertake projects directed towards fulfilling the PSF's mission. The advantage of this is that the PSF can accept funds on behalf of the projects, and provide relevant services. This idea is currently about 0.56-baked, but I suspect it would be helpful here. We'll have to involve Van Lindberg who, besides chairing PyCon this year is the PSF's attorney. > This is why there is usually some type of incorporated entity > "organizing" a conference. They limit the liability any individual > needs to take on and already have rules, procedures, and tools in place > to keep everything legit. This may be something the PyCon folks or PSF > may be able to help us with but we'll have to talk to them and see. > In terms of organization, in VA the easiest way to proceed would be to register an LLC (limited liability company) to act as the organizer. If NY/NYC is similar then they are very easy to register and flexible enough to accommodate many forms of organization. Fiscal sponsorship does not require that the third party be a registered 501 organization (though naturally the PSF would prefer a body run along non-profit lines). Hope this helps. See you at PyCon - I will definitely try to attend the open space meeting, as I have an interest in running similar conferences in the DC area. regards Steve > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Robert Hancock > <hancock.robert@gmail.com <mailto:hancock.robert@gmail.com>> wrote: > > The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup > up a meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and > pick their brains. > > Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Christian > <david.christian@gmail.com <mailto:david.christian@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com > <mailto:sean@seanoc.com>> wrote: > >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to > be any > >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where > sponsors pay > >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid > having to > >> take people's money. > > > > I think it might be possible to pull this of for everything > with the > > exception of insurance. There may be an outside chance that > the venue (to > > continue Dave's theme) will be willing/able to take on the > liability with > > their own insurance. Generally speaking tho, for this kind of > event they'll > > want the organization running the event to handle any liability. > > Hey Sean, would you be willing to do research to turn this from > a "we > need to do something like this" to "here's what needs to happen and > here's how much it will cost?" > > > Something else to consider in relation to money is credibility and > > attendance. Often for this type of event, people won't take > it seriously if > > it's free. Making the event free can reduce initial interest > and will > > result in a much higher rate of no-shows. That in turn can > make setting the > > attendance cap and planning pretty hard. > > I'm less worried about people taking the event seriously - I'm more > worried about biting off more than we can chew. I'd rather > sacrifice > size in favor of getting something out the door, if that's > necessary. > > > I'm not saying that we absolutely > > shouldn't make the event free for attendees but there are > things we need to > > consider and plan for if we go down that path. > > I'm not opposed to taking money in theory, just trying to limit the > cost in terms of time of setting up the event, as I've heard > (second-hand) that going through the procedures to set all this > up can > be a big time sink. If there's any light you can shed on this, > please > do! > > Cheers, > David > > > > ____________________________ > > Sean O'Connor > > http://seanoc.com > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, David Christian > > <david.christian@gmail.com <mailto:david.christian@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sean, > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sean O'Connor > <sean@seanoc.com <mailto:sean@seanoc.com>> wrote: > >> > I think since our primary goals are to make this conference > happen so > >> > soon, > >> > we should generally be thinking about a minimum viable type > of approach. > >> > This should mean using as many off the shelf tools as > possible and > >> > minimizing the amount of work to be done by organizers to > make things > >> > happen. > >> > >> This I definitely agree with. I think the summer is an ambitious > >> goal; but if we get space, then it'll work out. So once > again it gets > >> back to Hilary's point: we need to figure out the space. > >> > >> > To that end I'd suggest a two day format. Day one would be > fairly > >> > traditional conference with maybe two tracks of talks. We > all know how > >> > to > >> > run something like that smoothly and there are plenty of > existing tools > >> > for > >> > managing it. The second day could be something less > structured and more > >> > self organizing; perhaps sprints, unconference, or barcamp? > >> > >> I think this sounds nice, if we can get the space for a twi day > >> conference! > >> > >> > Slightly unrelatedly, I've been thinking about some things > we need to > >> > get > >> > figured out sooner than later, other than the venue. > Specifically, how > >> > are > >> > insurance and money going to be handled. Generally > speaking, both need > >> > to > >> > go through some type of incorporated entity so nobody loses > their home > >> > thanks to the conference going to hell. Perhaps this is > something that > >> > the > >> > PSF or the PyCon guys could give us some pointers/help on? > >> > >> This is one reason that I'm hoping that there won't have to > be any > >> money. _Ideally_ we'll have in-kind sponsorships (where > sponsors pay > >> the vendors directly) but at the least I'd like to avoid > having to > >> take people's money. > >> > >> Is that naive? Does anybody know what PyOhio does? > >> > >> D > >> > >> > ____________________________ > >> > Sean O'Connor > >> > http://seanoc.com > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz > <apgwoz@gmail.com <mailto:apgwoz@gmail.com>> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), > and I'm nerd > >> >> who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, > thought of this > >> >> ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I > >> >> currently > >> >> write python full time for Invite Media > (http://invitemedia.com), and > >> >> in > >> >> my > >> >> spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). > >> >> > >> >> And.... > >> >> > >> >> So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc > should be > >> >> and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've > already mentioned > >> >> that we think an "unconference" style might be > interesting, but I > >> >> wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. > >> >> > >> >> First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the > volume that would > >> >> make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might > be hard to > >> >> acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I > think we > >> >> should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before > hand. This > >> >> would mean finding/building an application which would > allow a user to > >> >> submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. > At the end > >> >> of the voting time (which should be as close to the > conference as > >> >> possible to make it more "unconferencey", our schedule is > almost all > >> >> complete, and if we are able to acquire multiple rooms, > we're able to > >> >> hold multiple talks at once, etc. > >> >> > >> >> Second of all, I think we should still try to get at least > 1, maybe 2 > >> >> talks for the beginning of the day, from as famous a > Python person as > >> >> possible. This sort of gives good incentive for everyone > to get there > >> >> on time, and not just show up late in the day for their > friend's talk > >> >> that got bumped until the end by the "facists" who voted > it to the end > >> >> of the day (or whatever). > >> >> > >> >> Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule > we need to > >> >> include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to > break things > >> >> up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning > strikes at > >> >> once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to > be serious > >> >> all the time." > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> Andrew > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> http://www.apgwoz.com > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> NYC Python Organizer - http://nycpython.org > >> http://communitiesintech.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > -- > NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/ > > > -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
[Re-sending to the list, now that I'm connected. Steve & Doug, sorry for the dupe.] On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 14:31, Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote: > Sean O'Connor wrote: >> The Pycon people have dealt with all of these problems. Let's setup >> up a meeting with them in Atlanta next week, buy them beers, and >> pick their brains. >> >> Apart from Steve Holden, whom should we target? >> >> >> +1 Steve, you could probably give the best advice on this. >> > I think you'd do well to include Doug Napoleone and David Goodger, both > of whom have been fairly heavily involved with PyCon. Those two may have > other suggestions. I have Cc'd them as an FYI, but don't expect much > back right now as PyCon looms and they'll be busy. (They probably can't > mail the list anyway, right?) Sounds like a small conference, but I don't have the time to go through the quote-trail to figure out what the issues are. If someone could summarize, that would be helpful. But (as Steve said) don't expect a reply soon. Or round us up at PyCon, probably the best plan. -- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>
David Goodger said: > > Sounds like a small conference, but I don't have the time to go > through the quote-trail to figure out what the issues are. If someone > could summarize, that would be helpful. But (as Steve said) don't > expect a reply soon. > > Or round us up at PyCon, probably the best plan. > I think this makes sense, as a number of us will be there and it's likely a more efficient way to gather the information. We'll summarize for the list and continue the conversation here. In the mean time, SPACE! I'm pretty sure none of the pycon organizers are going to be able to get a space for us in NYC. That we will have to do on our own. -- NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: > This is why there is usually some type of incorporated entity "organizing" a > conference. They limit the liability any individual needs to take on and > already have rules, procedures, and tools in place to keep everything legit. > This may be something the PyCon folks or PSF may be able to help us with > but we'll have to talk to them and see. It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit Organization. David--thoughts? -- http://www.apgwoz.com
> It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit > Organization. David--thoughts? > Everything I've heard says that this is a ton of work - 40-80 hours worth, if not more. I don't think we should go down that route unless there is a clear benefit. David -- NYC Python Organizer - http://meetup.com/nycpython/
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, David Christian <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: >> It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit >> Organization. David--thoughts? >> > > Everything I've heard says that this is a ton of work - 40-80 hours > worth, if not more. I don't think we should go down that route unless > there is a clear benefit. I guess it depends on where everything leads. If liability is accounted for and sponsorships end up taking care of costs without the need for one of us to intervene, then there's no reason that it can't be just there without any sort of entity. But, I see a few major reasons why we might want to be a part of some organizational unit. Sponsorship opportunities are probably much easier to get if they can be written off as a donation to a non-profit, etc. And, putting it under NYC-Python means that this extra sponsorship money, or whatever revenue is brought in from the thing would easily go towards future events, and food for meetups--or even larger space so that the 200 people? on the list can all attend a meetup at once. -- http://www.apgwoz.com
IANAL, but I remember hearing 501(c)(3) applications can take several years to get processed. In order for donations to be non-deductible, charities usually try to get "acquired" by an organization which already has 501(c)(3) status. Federal bureaucracy is a bitch. - Andrey On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, David Christian > <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit > >> Organization. David--thoughts? > >> > > > > Everything I've heard says that this is a ton of work - 40-80 hours > > worth, if not more. I don't think we should go down that route unless > > there is a clear benefit. > > I guess it depends on where everything leads. If liability is > accounted for and sponsorships end up taking care of costs without the > need for one of us to intervene, then there's no reason that it can't > be just there without any sort of entity. > > But, I see a few major reasons why we might want to be a part of some > organizational unit. Sponsorship opportunities are probably much > easier to get if they can be written off as a donation to a > non-profit, etc. > > And, putting it under NYC-Python means that this extra sponsorship > money, or whatever revenue is brought in from the thing would easily > go towards future events, and food for meetups--or even larger space > so that the 200 people? on the list can all attend a meetup at once. > > -- > http://www.apgwoz.com >
> But, I see a few major reasons why we might want to be a part of some > organizational unit. Sponsorship opportunities are probably much > easier to get if they can be written off as a donation to a > non-profit, etc. > > And, putting it under NYC-Python means that this extra sponsorship > money, or whatever revenue is brought in from the thing would easily > go towards future events, and food for meetups--or even larger space > so that the 200 people? on the list can all attend a meetup at once. Couldn't donations be made to the Python Software Foundation (a 501(c) (3)), which could turn around and give the money to NYC Python? Wes --- http://www.s7labs.com | http://standingrm.com
My thoughts still apply given Steve's thoughts of 'fiscal sponsorship,' given the apparently arduous task of getting Non-Profit status. On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Andrey Fedorov <anfedorov@gmail.com> wrote: > IANAL, but I remember hearing 501(c)(3) applications can take several years > to get processed. In order for donations to be non-deductible, charities > usually try to get "acquired" by an organization which already has 501(c)(3) > status. Federal bureaucracy is a bitch. > - Andrey > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, David Christian >> <david.christian@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit >> >> Organization. David--thoughts? >> >> >> > >> > Everything I've heard says that this is a ton of work - 40-80 hours >> > worth, if not more. I don't think we should go down that route unless >> > there is a clear benefit. >> >> I guess it depends on where everything leads. If liability is >> accounted for and sponsorships end up taking care of costs without the >> need for one of us to intervene, then there's no reason that it can't >> be just there without any sort of entity. >> >> But, I see a few major reasons why we might want to be a part of some >> organizational unit. Sponsorship opportunities are probably much >> easier to get if they can be written off as a donation to a >> non-profit, etc. >> >> And, putting it under NYC-Python means that this extra sponsorship >> money, or whatever revenue is brought in from the thing would easily >> go towards future events, and food for meetups--or even larger space >> so that the 200 people? on the list can all attend a meetup at once. >> >> -- >> http://www.apgwoz.com > > -- http://www.apgwoz.com
Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: >> This is why there is usually some type of incorporated entity "organizing" a >> conference. They limit the liability any individual needs to take on and >> already have rules, procedures, and tools in place to keep everything legit. >> This may be something the PyCon folks or PSF may be able to help us with >> but we'll have to talk to them and see. > > It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit > Organization. David--thoughts? > Registering a non-profit such as a 501(c)(3) is extremely, tediously, difficult. If you have the skills and the time I wouldn't discourage you, but it's an intimidating amount of effort. Please read my suggestion about PSF fiscal sponsorship elsewhere. I am hoping this will be helpful to all such groups. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
Can we piggyback on the Python Foundation? On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: > > This is why there is usually some type of incorporated entity > "organizing" a > > conference. They limit the liability any individual needs to take on and > > already have rules, procedures, and tools in place to keep everything > legit. > > This may be something the PyCon folks or PSF may be able to help us with > > but we'll have to talk to them and see. > > It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit > Organization. David--thoughts? > > > > -- > http://www.apgwoz.com >
I think that's the main thing we're going to look into on that front. We definitely need to grab some time with the PyCon/PSF folks to see what options may or may not be available. ____________________________ Sean O'Connor http://seanoc.com On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Robert Hancock <hancock.robert@gmail.com>wrote: > Can we piggyback on the Python Foundation? > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Sean O'Connor <sean@seanoc.com> wrote: >> > This is why there is usually some type of incorporated entity >> "organizing" a >> > conference. They limit the liability any individual needs to take on >> and >> > already have rules, procedures, and tools in place to keep everything >> legit. >> > This may be something the PyCon folks or PSF may be able to help us >> with >> > but we'll have to talk to them and see. >> >> It sounds like a great time to register NYC-Python up as a Non-Profit >> Organization. David--thoughts? >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.apgwoz.com >> > >
Hey Andrew! On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz <apgwoz@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm Andrew (apgwoz almost everywhere on the interwebs), and I'm nerd > who digs Python, and along with David, Justin and Jeff, thought of this > ridiculous (but INCREDIBLY awesome) idea in the first place. I currently > write python full time for Invite Media (http://invitemedia.com), and in my > spare time wish Python was as meta as Scheme (my true love). > > And.... > > So, I've been thinking about what the structure of pycnyc should be > and I came up with the following rough ideas. We've already mentioned > that we think an "unconference" style might be interesting, but I > wonder if a little more structure might be a little better. > Yeah, although you and I had talked about doing an unconference-style thing, I'm more interested in doing something a little more structured, at least for a good portion of the time. I think Sean's idea of having a two day event with the second day less structured sounds good to me, (again, if we can make it work!) > First of all, I don't know if we're going to get the volume that would > make sense to have an all out "unconference" and it might be hard to > acquire enough space to truly make it work. Therefore, I think we > should virtualize the "morning whiteboard" session before hand. This > would mean finding/building an application which would allow a user to > submit a talk idea, and have it scheduled based on votes. Ugh. This is starting to get too complicated I think. And the physical whiteboard I think is actually an important part of the unconference experience. Anyway, I think we should start planning for this after we get a space we can use for two days (or maybe two spaces we can get for one day). <snip> > Thirdly, and lastly of all, I think within this schedule we need to > include lightning talks. Ideally spread throughout, to break things > up, but perhaps a "storm" session where all the lightning strikes at > once. Yes, I was making a pun. It's pycnyc, not "I have to be serious > all the time." > This is an interesting idea. PyCon does something like this at the beginning and end of the day, and it can work pretty well. Once we've got a space lined up we can start talking about a general outline for the event. (Anybody noticing a theme in my emails?) David