In fact I'm also thinking of a core group of 5-7 organisers plus (hopefully) another 5-7 involved partially in a specific subproject (video coverage, social events, website, etc). But event the 5-7 core people are mostly busy, difficult to meet on a same day/hour regularly, etc. This is why I suggest to work more on a 2-3 people teams basis. Not tinking that each team has different 2-3 people, same Dave or Ludovic cab be in 2 or 3 projects themselves but at least they know and everybody know much better which is their primary commitment and what is expected from them. Otherwise my feeling is that we spend more time waiting for everybody to meet and getting broad agreements than actually working and doing stuff. For instance, last week we discussed about registration fees, visas, sponsorship to special cases... Several people took part in the discussion, have we got to a conclusion? Instead of discussing again everybody which is the conclusion I would request to the Registration team to come up with a final proposal to be approved by the coordination. If we put names on this we see that, as for today, the Registration team consists of Fernando and me. And coordination consists, as for today, of Dave and me. After the discussion held in the mailing list a conference call between Dave, Fernando and me should be enough to make a decision. Then, as always, improvements can be suggested on decisions made, but at least we have something more than a bunch of emails or an IRC log. En/na Ludovic Danigo ha escrit: > The problem I see here is that your assuming some good > level of participation when reality tells that those > kind of event are generally organised by a smal core > of person. > > I know that for instance the LSM (Libre Software > Meeting) did not used to be more than 5-7 active chap. > And I once heard once that FOSDEM is generally set up > by a core team not larger than 12 people. > > The more participation, the better of course but my > experience tell me that's not what generally happen. > You should start think of team of one person :-D > >>From previous experience, just assign task to people > and ask them to commit to it. Don't expect teams to > pop up. If others show specific interest team can be > formed later. > > I might be wrong anyway. Let's hope more people will > be willing to help. > > -- Quim Gil - http://desdeamericaconamor.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature