Honestly, I'm the most concerned that there was only one proposal last year.
Let's try to solve that problem.

-Sean


On 6/15/11 1:46 PM, "Kevin S. Clarke" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Heresy I know, but I wonder if we should change conf host/site selection
>> from an open vote, to a conf selection committee that chooses.  Then the
>> committee could say to themselves "you know, even though the hosts say no
>> problem keeping costs as usual, we don't think an expensive city like that
>> is the best thing for us." Of course, in addition to being heretical, that
>> would rely on there being some people who wanted to fill that role, which
>> there may not be.
>
> What is the problem we're trying to solve again? Do we think that the
> recent conferences have cost too much for the attendees? That this
> year's will cost too much? Are we worried about not finding places to
> host in the future? Are we worried about needing the level of
> sponsorship that we currently do?
>
> This seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem. If we've
> trying to address the conference's relationship with its sponsors,
> Jaf's suggestion (e.g., define our expectations and see what happens)
> seems like a reasonable first step to me.
>
> Kevin