 |
 |
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