Re: PGCon 2008 RFP - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
| From | Gavin M. Roy |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: PGCon 2008 RFP |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | af1bce590901051538p7d680dc1v22386bfd42cf5a8d@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: PGCon 2008 RFP (Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>) |
| List | pgsql-advocacy |
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
gmr@myyearbook.com ("Gavin M. Roy") writes:I'll suggest different "prime value" to this sort of
> Personally, the only argument I see for standardization is it makes
> the conference feel more professional. Having been to a fair
> amount of conferences, I'm more impressed by the ones that put an
> emphasis on the polish of the event, matching collateral materials
> (logos, signage, > etc). Obviously content is king, but second to
> content is how the content is conveyed, the design image of a
> conference.
standardization...
Standardizing formats means that you *might* more readily be able to
produce a single, somewhat-uniform-looking, document combining all the
material together.
Conference proceedings are the more typical example of attempts to
"standardize format;" having common format means that they can publish
*THAT* as a "book" and not have it look like a dog's breakfast.
Agreed and I think that was the point of the OP.
The PostgreSQL-related conferences aren't formal enough for that sort
of imposition to seem at all reasonable. We're generally not in the
sort of academic "publish-or-perish" peril that would force the
presenters to go to that particular sort of effort.
I don't think anyone but the people objecting to having such collateral material are suggesting imposing it on anyone. I think the OP was vague, but he did not say he wanted to force it on people, just soliciting opinions on having such standard materials.
I would suggest that, for our purposes, there is a value in NOT
attempting standardization, namely that we haven't anything resembling
the degree of infrastructure required to support production of a
sufficiently "all-encompassing" standardized format.
I don't think it's as big of an effort as it's being made out to be.
We don't (yet ;-)) have in-place upgrades beteween versions; I'd
*much* rather that "systematizing efforts" went into that.
I do too ;-)
If we had someone around that was a graphic arts "guru" who wanted to
put together some nice looking PowerPoint/Keynote/OOImpress templates,
I don't imagine anyone would say "Don't do it!" But I don't think
it's worth looking *hard* for that, or in trying to impose burdens
surrounding this on presenters.
Agreed
I don't believe that a lack of "collateral matching" is our largest
problem :-).
For clarity I don't think anyone thinks it's a problem. I think the suggestion was it has the potential to make the conference better. I know others don't agree. I don't think we need to bike-shed this to death. It was a suggestion that a minority of people who have participated in the discussion agreed with. If one of us feels strongly about it, we'll step up. There's no need for the name calling and rude behavior that was in #postgresql with regard to this.
Gavin
pgsql-advocacy by date: