Re: Wineconf 2007 survey

[Dan Kegel]

Did you get enough responses?   Seems like a mention on wine-devel
might be in order.

On 4/30/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Well, I was hoping that out of the chatter following my last email,
> we'd have consenus about the location.
>
> However, the overwhelming silence didn't really help :-/.  So, to try to
> help
> get some forward momentum, I thought we should turn to a survey
> again - then we'd just pick the most popular spot.
>
> To that end, if you could visit this page:
>
> http://www.winehq.org/site/wineconf/survey
>
> and enter your preference, I'd appreciate it.  Should take only
> a sec (exactly 1 question, although your name and email are nice too :-/).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
> wineconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Jeremy White]

We've got 24 so far; 12 for Zurich, 9 for Amsterdam, and 3 for Bratislava.

I'm attaching the raw results, as there are comments in there.

The summary of the comments is that either Amsterdam or Zurich works equally well
for most folks; some people only like the LA option, and Marcus
is concerned that the LA option won't really work out.

Is that enough?

Cheers,

Jeremy

Dan Kegel wrote:
> Did you get enough responses?   Seems like a mention on wine-devel
> might be in order.
>
> On 4/30/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Well, I was hoping that out of the chatter following my last email,
> > we'd have consenus about the location.
> >
> > However, the overwhelming silence didn't really help :-/.  So, to try to
> > help
> > get some forward momentum, I thought we should turn to a survey
> > again - then we'd just pick the most popular spot.
> >
> > To that end, if you could visit this page:
> >
> > http://www.winehq.org/site/wineconf/survey
> >
> > and enter your preference, I'd appreciate it.  Should take only
> > a sec (exactly 1 question, although your name and email are nice too
> > :-/).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> > wineconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf

Amsterdam	Jeremy Newman	[e-mail]	Sweet!	
Zurich	Jeremy White	[e-mail]	Let's hang with Google...	
Zurich	Kai Blin	[e-mail]	Do we have a date for this yet? September is kind of busy for me. I'm on vacation for two weeks and on a Samba conference after that. :/	
Amsterdam	Roderick Colenbrander	[e-mail]	I'm from the Netherlands as well. I'm studying at the University of Twente. At the campus of my university we have good facilities (both for the conference as well as sleeping). This might be an option. Roderick	
Bratislava	Robert Shearman	[e-mail]	I'm excited for Martin to show us his local bar. Zurich is also an attractive option.	
Amsterdam	Huw Davies	[e-mail]		
Zurich	Jonathan Ernst	[e-mail]		
Zurich	Brian Vincent	[e-mail]	My plans to attend will be completely contingent on dates since my fiance is probably not going to want to go to Wineconf for a honeymoon. I voted Zurich ONLY because there's a possibility of a satellite site.  Otherwise I would have voted for Amsterdam.	
Zurich	Steven Edwards	[e-mail]	My choice order is 1,3,2	
Zurich	Eric Pouech	[e-mail]	Either Zurich or Amsterdam or Utrecht are fine to me (I checked Netherlands because travel is slighty shorter).	
Zurich	James Hawkins	[e-mail]	Attending the satellite in Santa Monica will be my only way to be a part of WineConf this year.	
Zurich	Hans Leidekker	[e-mail]	I'll be modest and limit my choice to Zurich and Bratislava ;) 	
Amsterdam	Michael Stefaniuc	[e-mail]	I don't mind Zurich either.	
Bratislava	Andrew Bogott	[e-mail]	(Really, all three places sound great.  Just, I've never been to Bratislava.)	
Zurich	Francois Gouget	[e-mail]		
Zurich	_Marcus_	[e-mail]	perhaps no satellite ... it is not going to work I guess	
Amsterdam	Stefan Dösinger	[e-mail]	I'd be fine with the other places too. 	
Amsterdam	Henri Verbeet	[e-mail]	Any location in the Netherlands is obviously very convenient for me, but I don't particularly mind either of the other two options either. 	
Zurich	Scott Ritchie	[e-mail]	If someone can get to Amsterdam or Utrech, they likely can get to Zurich.  The main selling point is the satellite site in California, though.	
Zurich	Ulrich Czekalla	[e-mail]		
Amsterdam	Paul Millar	[e-mail]	I went for Amsterdam/Netherlands just because I know a few people who live in Amsterdam: I'd be happy with any of the three.	
Amsterdam	Tom Wickline	[e-mail]	I would like for it to be held in October, six months out.. but any date at least four months out is fine with me.. Just ample time to plan and save for the trip. Cheers, Tom	
Amsterdam	Martin Pilka	[e-mail]	I vote for Amsterdam, since I have been never there :) Anyway, I would go to any of those 3 places 	
Zurich	Dan Kegel	[e-mail]

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Steven Edwards]

On 5/1/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> We've got 24 so far; 12 for Zurich, 9 for Amsterdam, and 3 for Bratislava.

It seems like most of the people that voted for Amsterdam will take
Zurich as a second choice so if we treat it like instant runoff that
clears a majority.

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Marcus Meissner]

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Steven Edwards wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> > We've got 24 so far; 12 for Zurich, 9 for Amsterdam, and 3 for Bratislava.
>
> It seems like most of the people that voted for Amsterdam will take
> Zurich as a second choice so if we treat it like instant runoff that
> clears a majority.

Same way round, I wouldn't mind Amsterdam either. ;)

Ciao, Marcus

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Jeremy White]

Jeremy White wrote:
> We've got 24 so far; 12 for Zurich, 9 for Amsterdam, and 3 for Bratislava.

We have 12 more; 6 for Zurich, 4 for Amsterdam, and 2 for Bratislava.

That makes the totals 18 Zurich, 13 Amsterdam, and 5 Bratislava.

I think that is now statistically enough to declare for Zurich,
although I'd like to hear from Mr. Hearn that he's ready to deal
with that influx.

Dan, I also think that a number of the folks voting, are doing so
with the thought that they'd go to Santa Monica, so I want to make sure
that works for you.

We should probably also have a gut check on just how we would
accommodate that.  I fear that a 9 hour time zone difference
is going to make things quite awkward.  For example, a 9 am Saturday
key note would be midnight Friday in LA.

That tends to imply we'd really be having 2 events that are loosely
coupled, rather than 1 functional event.

I suppose staying up until 4 or 5 in the morning in LA is still
easier on ones sleep patterns than flying to Europe, so perhaps
there is some chance for overlap.  I just don't want to be the one
to ask Alexandre to wake up early to do his key note... <grin>

Cheers,

Jeremy

Wineconf 2007 survey

[James Hawkins]

On 5/10/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> Jeremy White wrote:
> > We've got 24 so far; 12 for Zurich, 9 for Amsterdam, and 3 for Bratislava.
>
> We have 12 more; 6 for Zurich, 4 for Amsterdam, and 2 for Bratislava.
>
> That makes the totals 18 Zurich, 13 Amsterdam, and 5 Bratislava.
>
> I think that is now statistically enough to declare for Zurich,
> although I'd like to hear from Mr. Hearn that he's ready to deal
> with that influx.
>
> Dan, I also think that a number of the folks voting, are doing so
> with the thought that they'd go to Santa Monica, so I want to make sure
> that works for you.
>
> We should probably also have a gut check on just how we would
> accommodate that.  I fear that a 9 hour time zone difference
> is going to make things quite awkward.  For example, a 9 am Saturday
> key note would be midnight Friday in LA.

I don't mind a midnight meeting in LA :)

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jeremy White  writes:
> I suppose staying up until 4 or 5 in the morning in LA is still
> easier on ones sleep patterns than flying to Europe, so perhaps
> there is some chance for overlap.  I just don't want to be the one
> to ask Alexandre to wake up early to do his key note... <grin>

You mean 9am isn't early????  ;-)

I have to admit I'm fairly skeptical too about the synchronized remote
site. If it's a two-way link it will be a major distraction IMO, and
if it's one-way then the LA folks can just as well watch it on
Saturday instead of staying up all night...

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Dan Kegel]

OK, I now think the satellite isn't going to work out,
for various reasons.   I think we should go with
Zurich, and look into travel scholarships for serious
Wine developers who would come but for the expense
of the flight.

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Jeremy White]

Jeremy Newman is going to look into putting up ad words for a
bit on the web site to see if that earns enough revenue to help
offer travel scholarships; if that doesn't work, we'll see
if we can figure something else out.

Cheers,

Jeremy

Dan Kegel wrote:
> OK, I now think the satellite isn't going to work out,
> for various reasons.   I think we should go with
> Zurich, and look into travel scholarships for serious
> Wine developers who would come but for the expense
> of the flight.
>
> wineconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Mike Hearn]

Apologies for being a noob but was there a date decided for this? I
can certainly (try to) entertain 18 people in Zurich, and we'll have
enough space in the old office at least.

About the video link, I don't think it'd be that distracting. It's
pretty common to do 2-way videoconfs here and it works pretty well.
Each side can turn their mic off easily if nobody is going to speak,
though the noise suppression normally makes it unnecessary. But the
timezone is the main issue.

On 5/10/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> Jeremy Newman is going to look into putting up ad words for a
> bit on the web site to see if that earns enough revenue to help
> offer travel scholarships; if that doesn't work, we'll see
> if we can figure something else out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > OK, I now think the satellite isn't going to work out,
> > for various reasons.   I think we should go with
> > Zurich, and look into travel scholarships for serious
> > Wine developers who would come but for the expense
> > of the flight.
> >
> > wineconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf
>
> wineconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Jeremy White]

Ah..actually, it'd be more like 35-40, if past Wineconf
attendance was any guide.  (We had 50+ when we had
the Samba guys too, but I'm not sure we'll repeat that).

And I think you'd be the one setting the date; I think
the preference is for a weekend in October
(all else being equal on or before Oct 3, as we had
one RSVPer who requested that).

Cheers,

Jeremy

Mike Hearn wrote:
> Apologies for being a noob but was there a date decided for this? I
> can certainly (try to) entertain 18 people in Zurich, and we'll have
> enough space in the old office at least.
>
> About the video link, I don't think it'd be that distracting. It's
> pretty common to do 2-way videoconfs here and it works pretty well.
> Each side can turn their mic off easily if nobody is going to speak,
> though the noise suppression normally makes it unnecessary. But the
> timezone is the main issue.
>
> On 5/10/07, Jeremy White  wrote:
> > Jeremy Newman is going to look into putting up ad words for a
> > bit on the web site to see if that earns enough revenue to help
> > offer travel scholarships; if that doesn't work, we'll see
> > if we can figure something else out.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> > Dan Kegel wrote:
> > > OK, I now think the satellite isn't going to work out,
> > > for various reasons.   I think we should go with
> > > Zurich, and look into travel scholarships for serious
> > > Wine developers who would come but for the expense
> > > of the flight.
> > >
> > > wineconf mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf
> >
> > wineconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf
>
> wineconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Shachar Shemesh]

Jeremy White wrote:
> Ah..actually, it'd be more like 35-40, if past Wineconf
> attendance was any guide.  (We had 50+ when we had
> the Samba guys too, but I'm not sure we'll repeat that).

Why not? It seemed to me to work pretty well.

Shachar

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Brian Vincent]

Dan Kegel  wrote:
> OK, I now think the satellite isn't going to work out,
>  for various reasons.   I think we should go with
>  Zurich, and look into travel scholarships for serious
>  Wine developers who would come but for the expense
>  of the flight.

At this point it seems Zurich wins.  Can we pick dates?

I'd love it if we could video conference and I don't mind staying up all night.
Zurich probably won't be an option for me, but LA might.  Because of the time
difference, would that work to our advantage getting conference space?  I
doubt too many people are using the conference room between 11pm and 8am.

As long as bandwidth and connectivity weren't an issue, I think we might
be able to get Cisco to come in and set up some of their products.  I
have some contacts there and they're heavily pushing their 'Telepresence'
products.

-Brian

Wineconf 2007 survey

[Dan Kegel]

On 5/11/07, Brian Vincent  wrote:
> At this point it seems Zurich wins.  Can we pick dates?

Mike Hearn is talking with the facilities people now to do that.
> I'd love it if we could video conference and I don't mind staying up all night.
> Zurich probably won't be an option for me, but LA might.  Because of the time
> difference, would that work to our advantage getting conference space?  I
> doubt too many people are using the conference room between 11pm and 8am.

I don't think that's going to fly for various reasons (security being one),
so it's probably Zurich without any linkup to the LA google office.
But recording the event for YouTube and/or streaming audio and/or video
are probably possibilities if somebody wants to take the lead.
- Dan