Hey folks, We punted on the question of where to have the next Wineconf. Two candidates we considered were Japan and Toronto. I've asked folks at Valve if they would be willing to present at the next conference, and the answer was positive for Toronto, and less enthusiastic for Japan. Ulrich has been patiently offering to host for many years, and I think it would be good to rotate back to North America on it's scheduled year. So I propose we have WineConf 2019 in Toronto, with a tentative plan to try for Japan in 2020. One question we also never addressed was what of time of year. It seemed as though summer worked really well last year. Historically, the 'plan' was early fall; procrastination has forced us to late fall in recent years. But I volunteered to conduct a quick survey, which is here: https://goo.gl/forms/wnWeIRWkYqTmrUtI3 If we get a statistically compelling set of answers, we'll follow those results. Otherwise, how about we let Ulrich pick. That all make sense? Pitchforks and torches go here. Cheers, Jeremy
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
We punted on the question of where to have the next Wineconf. Two candidates we considered were Japan and Toronto.
I've asked folks at Valve if they would be willing to present at the next conference, and the answer was positive for Toronto, and less enthusiastic for Japan. Ulrich has been patiently offering to host for many years, and I think it would be good to rotate back to North America on it's scheduled year.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, "we" above is "the Wine Project Leadership committee", as opposed to "CodeWeavers", right? I would like it to be clear that this reply is as a member of the Wine project, as opposed to a CodeWeavers contractor. At the same time, since apparently Valve's willingness to attend in Canada, but not in Japan was a consideration, I think it's only fair to point out that CodeWeavers also has significant customers in Japan. Were they asked as well?
So I propose we have WineConf 2019 in Toronto, with a tentative plan to try for Japan in 2020.
One question we also never addressed was what of time of year. It seemed as though summer worked really well last year. Historically, the 'plan' was early fall; procrastination has forced us to late fall in recent years. But I volunteered to conduct a quick survey, which is here:
https://goo.gl/forms/wnWeIRWkYqTmrUtI3
If we get a statistically compelling set of answers, we'll follow those results. Otherwise, how about we let Ulrich pick.
That all make sense?
Pitchforks and torches go here.
Although I'm confident Ulrich would make a great host, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised to learn I'd be a little disappointed if WineConf 2019 wouldn't be in Asia. Henri
Hi Henri, On 12/17/18 5:47 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
We punted on the question of where to have the next Wineconf. Two candidates we considered were Japan and Toronto.
I've asked folks at Valve if they would be willing to present at the next conference, and the answer was positive for Toronto, and less enthusiastic for Japan. Ulrich has been patiently offering to host for many years, and I think it would be good to rotate back to North America on it's scheduled year.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, "we" above is "the Wine Project Leadership committee", as opposed to "CodeWeavers", right?
It was not intended to be a 'We' as in CodeWeavers, but I meant it more as a 'We the gathered Wine community'. We've never really had a formal process for deciding things like next conference location; it tends to be more of an ad hoc consensus. And while the committee holds the power to fund the event, it does not generally take a role in determining it's location. That is, it does not act like a board of directors would and make decisions like this. The committee really limits itself to funding decisions.
I would like it to be clear that this reply is as a member of the Wine project, as opposed to a CodeWeavers contractor. At the same time, since apparently Valve's willingness to attend in Canada, but not in Japan was a consideration, I think it's only fair to point out that CodeWeavers also has significant customers in Japan. Were they asked as well?
No. But I think Valve's use of Wine is a particularly interesting story. The other point is that I felt I got a similar reaction from a number of people when we did discuss Asia; that they would come to North America, but not Asia. My feeling is that there is a small group of people that are very passionate for the idea, and then a lot of indifferent people, and a small number that would not come if it was in Asia. Anyone saying they will not come to the conference tends to affect me, perhaps in a disproportionate way.
So I propose we have WineConf 2019 in Toronto, with a tentative plan to try for Japan in 2020.
One question we also never addressed was what of time of year. It seemed as though summer worked really well last year. Historically, the 'plan' was early fall; procrastination has forced us to late fall in recent years. But I volunteered to conduct a quick survey, which is here:
https://goo.gl/forms/wnWeIRWkYqTmrUtI3
If we get a statistically compelling set of answers, we'll follow those results. Otherwise, how about we let Ulrich pick.
That all make sense?
Pitchforks and torches go here.
Although I'm confident Ulrich would make a great host, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised to learn I'd be a little disappointed if WineConf 2019 wouldn't be in Asia.
Just to speak to my thinking a bit further. My feeling was that if we telegraphed the move to Asia for a longer period that we would increase the odds of having more people attend. I would also like to have an actual host - someone that lives in Asia who is willing to volunteer - so that we have someone who can coordinate the event. My hope was that we could start that ask now, and have them stand up and advocate for their site at this years conference. But the point of the email was to provoke a conversation, so thank you for that. Unfortunately, we don't have a formal mechanism for deciding this; we generally rely on consensus. So ideally I persuade you to my way of thinking, or we get a strong chorus of other voices advocating for one way or the other. Cheers, Jeremy p.s. The summer / fall poll results are running exactly 50/50 at the moment :-/.
p.s. The summer / fall poll results are running exactly 50/50 at the moment :-/.
So why not do it during Festivus! ;) Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Hi Henri,
On 12/17/18 5:47 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: We punted on the question of where to have the next Wineconf. Two candidates we considered were Japan and Toronto.
I've asked folks at Valve if they would be willing to present at the next conference, and the answer was positive for Toronto, and less enthusiastic for Japan. Ulrich has been patiently offering to host for many years, and I think it would be good to rotate back to North America on it's scheduled year.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, "we" above is "the Wine Project Leadership committee", as opposed to "CodeWeavers", right?
It was not intended to be a 'We' as in CodeWeavers, but I meant it more as a 'We the gathered Wine community'.
We've never really had a formal process for deciding things like next conference location; it tends to be more of an ad hoc consensus. And while the committee holds the power to fund the event, it does not generally take a role in determining it's location. That is, it does not act like a board of directors would and make decisions like this. The committee really limits itself to funding decisions.
I would like it to be clear that this reply is as a member of the Wine project, as opposed to a CodeWeavers contractor. At the same time, since apparently Valve's willingness to attend in Canada, but not in Japan was a consideration, I think it's only fair to point out that CodeWeavers also has significant customers in Japan. Were they asked as well?
No. But I think Valve's use of Wine is a particularly interesting story.
The other point is that I felt I got a similar reaction from a number of people when we did discuss Asia; that they would come to North America, but not Asia. My feeling is that there is a small group of people that are very passionate for the idea, and then a lot of indifferent people, and a small number that would not come if it was in Asia. Anyone saying they will not come to the conference tends to affect me, perhaps in a disproportionate way.
So I propose we have WineConf 2019 in Toronto, with a tentative plan to try for Japan in 2020.
One question we also never addressed was what of time of year. It seemed as though summer worked really well last year. Historically, the 'plan' was early fall; procrastination has forced us to late fall in recent years. But I volunteered to conduct a quick survey, which is here:
https://goo.gl/forms/wnWeIRWkYqTmrUtI3
If we get a statistically compelling set of answers, we'll follow those results. Otherwise, how about we let Ulrich pick.
That all make sense?
Pitchforks and torches go here.
Although I'm confident Ulrich would make a great host, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised to learn I'd be a little disappointed if WineConf 2019 wouldn't be in Asia.
Just to speak to my thinking a bit further. My feeling was that if we telegraphed the move to Asia for a longer period that we would increase the odds of having more people attend. I would also like to have an actual host - someone that lives in Asia who is willing to volunteer - so that we have someone who can coordinate the event. My hope was that we could start that ask now, and have them stand up and advocate for their site at this years conference.
But the point of the email was to provoke a conversation, so thank you for that.
Unfortunately, we don't have a formal mechanism for deciding this; we generally rely on consensus. So ideally I persuade you to my way of thinking, or we get a strong chorus of other voices advocating for one way or the other.
Cheers,
Jeremy
p.s. The summer / fall poll results are running exactly 50/50 at the moment :-/.
_______________________________________________ wineconf mailing list wineconf(a)winehq.org https://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 04:19, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On 12/17/18 5:47 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
We punted on the question of where to have the next Wineconf. Two candidates we considered were Japan and Toronto.
I've asked folks at Valve if they would be willing to present at the next conference, and the answer was positive for Toronto, and less enthusiastic for Japan. Ulrich has been patiently offering to host for many years, and I think it would be good to rotate back to North America on it's scheduled year.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, "we" above is "the Wine Project Leadership committee", as opposed to "CodeWeavers", right?
It was not intended to be a 'We' as in CodeWeavers, but I meant it more as a 'We the gathered Wine community'.
We've never really had a formal process for deciding things like next conference location; it tends to be more of an ad hoc consensus. And while the committee holds the power to fund the event, it does not generally take a role in determining it's location. That is, it does not act like a board of directors would and make decisions like this. The committee really limits itself to funding decisions.
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these. Building a consensus is of course great, but that's not the same as making a decision—decisions are ultimately made by individuals. I also think it would be fair towards potential hosts if the WineConf process was fairly transparent.
I would like it to be clear that this reply is as a member of the Wine project, as opposed to a CodeWeavers contractor. At the same time, since apparently Valve's willingness to attend in Canada, but not in Japan was a consideration, I think it's only fair to point out that CodeWeavers also has significant customers in Japan. Were they asked as well?
No. But I think Valve's use of Wine is a particularly interesting story.
Certainly. Much of which would be under NDA though?
The other point is that I felt I got a similar reaction from a number of people when we did discuss Asia; that they would come to North America, but not Asia. My feeling is that there is a small group of people that are very passionate for the idea, and then a lot of indifferent people, and a small number that would not come if it was in Asia. Anyone saying they will not come to the conference tends to affect me, perhaps in a disproportionate way.
Was that at WineConf, by any chance? I think it's fair to point out that that would exclude asking people that would not attend in Europe or the US. And of course, I think it would be somewhat optimistic to expect the same kind of attendance as in e.g. Europe; much of the point would trying to make that grow over the next few years.
Pitchforks and torches go here.
Although I'm confident Ulrich would make a great host, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised to learn I'd be a little disappointed if WineConf 2019 wouldn't be in Asia.
Just to speak to my thinking a bit further. My feeling was that if we telegraphed the move to Asia for a longer period that we would increase the odds of having more people attend. I would also like to have an actual host - someone that lives in Asia who is willing to volunteer - so that we have someone who can coordinate the event. My hope was that we could start that ask now, and have them stand up and advocate for their site at this years conference.
But the point of the email was to provoke a conversation, so thank you for that.
Well, I try :D I do get the impression though that most people either really don't care, or don't feel like their opinion would make a difference, so at the very least I'll give you that. Henri
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 10:42 Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 04:19, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On 12/17/18 5:47 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 01:34, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
We punted on the question of where to have the next Wineconf. Two candidates we considered were Japan and Toronto.
I've asked folks at Valve if they would be willing to present at the next conference, and the answer was positive for Toronto, and less enthusiastic for Japan. Ulrich has been patiently offering to host for many years, and I think it would be good to rotate back to North America on it's scheduled year.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, "we" above is "the Wine Project Leadership committee", as opposed to "CodeWeavers", right?
It was not intended to be a 'We' as in CodeWeavers, but I meant it more as a 'We the gathered Wine community'.
We've never really had a formal process for deciding things like next conference location; it tends to be more of an ad hoc consensus. And while the committee holds the power to fund the event, it does not generally take a role in determining it's location. That is, it does not act like a board of directors would and make decisions like this. The committee really limits itself to funding decisions.
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these.
While I don't have strong opinions on where we host it this year (or most years), I'd be in favor of the committee being involved more involved than deciding stipends. Especially since the location chosen has a large effect on how the stipends will look.
Hi all,
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these.
While I don't have strong opinions on where we host it this year (or most years), I'd be in favor of the committee being involved more involved than deciding stipends. Especially since the location chosen has a large effect on how the stipends will look.
Alexandre has suggested that we could do this by asking for proposals, and then the committee could choose between proposals. Michael and Marcus, would you be willing to help decide? If no one else objects, a call for proposals seems like a reasonable next step to me. Cheers, Jeremy
On 1/7/19 10:05 PM, Jeremy White wrote:
Hi all,
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these.
While I don't have strong opinions on where we host it this year (or most years), I'd be in favor of the committee being involved more involved than deciding stipends. Especially since the location chosen has a large effect on how the stipends will look.
Alexandre has suggested that we could do this by asking for proposals, and then the committee could choose between proposals.
Michael and Marcus, would you be willing to help decide? If no one else objects, a call for proposals seems like a reasonable next step to me. Sure.
I figure we need to post some requirements for the conference so people will know what they'll get into by volunteering. bye michael
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 01:46, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)winehq.org> wrote:
I figure we need to post some requirements for the conference so people will know what they'll get into by volunteering.
I don't know whether I'd necessarily be the best person to do this, but if you think it would help, I'd be happy to write up an initial version of some kind of checklist of things to do.
On 1/9/19 4:19 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 01:46, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)winehq.org> wrote:
I figure we need to post some requirements for the conference so people will know what they'll get into by volunteering.
I don't know whether I'd necessarily be the best person to do this, but if you think it would help, I'd be happy to write up an initial version of some kind of checklist of things to do.
Actually, I think you'd be the best person to do that; I think that would be very helpful. Cheers, Jeremy
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 00:49, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On 1/9/19 4:19 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 01:46, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)winehq.org> wrote:
I figure we need to post some requirements for the conference so people will know what they'll get into by volunteering.
I don't know whether I'd necessarily be the best person to do this, but if you think it would help, I'd be happy to write up an initial version of some kind of checklist of things to do.
Actually, I think you'd be the best person to do that; I think that would be very helpful.
I'll try to write something up.
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 00:35, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these.
While I don't have strong opinions on where we host it this year (or most years), I'd be in favor of the committee being involved more involved than deciding stipends. Especially since the location chosen has a large effect on how the stipends will look.
Alexandre has suggested that we could do this by asking for proposals, and then the committee could choose between proposals.
Michael and Marcus, would you be willing to help decide? If no one else objects, a call for proposals seems like a reasonable next step to me.
It has been brought to my attention that the suggestion here was intended for this year's WineConf. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, but it would mean that after going through that process there would be relatively little time to organise the actual conference. It may be more practical to start asking for proposals for WineConf 2020 at this point. Henri
On 1/9/19 11:07 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 00:35, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these.
While I don't have strong opinions on where we host it this year (or most years), I'd be in favor of the committee being involved more involved than deciding stipends. Especially since the location chosen has a large effect on how the stipends will look.
Alexandre has suggested that we could do this by asking for proposals, and then the committee could choose between proposals.
Michael and Marcus, would you be willing to help decide? If no one else objects, a call for proposals seems like a reasonable next step to me.
It has been brought to my attention that the suggestion here was intended for this year's WineConf. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, but it would mean that after going through that process there would be relatively little time to organise the actual conference. It may be more practical to start asking for proposals for WineConf 2020 at this point. I had assumed too that this exercise was for the 2020 WineConf.
bye michael
Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)winehq.org> writes:
On 1/9/19 11:07 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 00:35, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Since it's been a while since we've had a "Governance" discussion, I would be curious to learn the opinions of the other people on this list if I were to suggest that perhaps it would be healthy for Wine if the committee did play a more active role in decisions like these.
While I don't have strong opinions on where we host it this year (or most years), I'd be in favor of the committee being involved more involved than deciding stipends. Especially since the location chosen has a large effect on how the stipends will look.
Alexandre has suggested that we could do this by asking for proposals, and then the committee could choose between proposals.
Michael and Marcus, would you be willing to help decide? If no one else objects, a call for proposals seems like a reasonable next step to me.
It has been brought to my attention that the suggestion here was intended for this year's WineConf. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, but it would mean that after going through that process there would be relatively little time to organise the actual conference. It may be more practical to start asking for proposals for WineConf 2020 at this point. I had assumed too that this exercise was for the 2020 WineConf.
It seems to me that we still have enough time, so I don't see a reason not to try it this year. I wouldn't expect it to be a 6-month process. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (6)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Austin English -
Henri Verbeet -
Jana Schmid -
Jeremy White -
Michael Stefaniuc