[Members] Thoughts on the US XMPP Summit
adam at andyet.com
adam at andyet.com
Thu Jun 4 14:30:06 UTC 2015
I certainly concur that it would be awesome if there was a FOSDEM-like event in the US!
For what it's worth, tickets are not sold out, and we will ensure that any XSF member will have the ability to purchase a RealtimeConf ticket.
I can confirm that Ralph and Matthew Wild have already purchased tickets and will be there along with &yet's XSF folks (Peter Saint-Andre, Philipp Hancke, Lance Stout, Bear, Nathan Fritz)
@adambrault // &yet
Help us make the next version of Talky great — back our Kickstarter
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> The Board seems to have decided to co-locate the US Summit with RealTime
> Conf. It's been decided to co-locate on the basis that co-locating draws
> people to the Summit. I agree with the reasoning; we co-locate with FOSDEM
> because FOSDEM draws thousands of developers from across Europe, being the
> largest free conference I'm aware of. There's no parallel in the US, which
> is a shame - it'd be an obvious place to work.
> Now, I happen to think Realtime Conf is pretty awesome. I made the last
> two, and thoroughly enjoyed them.
> But this year's is restricted to 150 tickets, which may already be sold
> out. I know that all the &Yet folk will be there, and I've no doubt Ralph
> will make it, and I'll do my best to persuade Surevine that it's
> tremendously important to my professional development (although it's
> probably too late).
> But I'm a little worried that a US Summit needs more than just &Yet folk
> and Ralph and (maybe) me.
> Again, this is not to detract from Ralph, or the &Yet folk; but I can't
> help but think that the major problem we have in the US is a lack of broad
> participation, and a conference at which the numbers of attendees
> interested in XMPP are going to be vanishingly small isn't going to help
> Now, if the decision is really because people just want to meet up and chat
> about XMPP while at RTC, well, that's fine - but that's not the stated
> reasoning. As I said at the beginning, I agree with the reasoning the Board
> stated; I just don't think it leads to the same conclusion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members