 |
 |
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