From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Sun Aug 30 2009 - 13:08:27 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Moving forward
Primary hotel
Primary Hotel
Three-hotel strategy
Primary hotel advantages
Primary hotel
Hotels
Alternative suggestion
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV 2010 Organizational Mailing List (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Replies to this message will be forwarded to the DLVORG list and not
the DLV-Announce or DLV-Discuss list.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moving forward:
More very good hotel discussion and one idea which I must
admit is quite innovative.
We're getting a good mix of input from new volunteers,
multi-year people, and long-timers. This is a Very Good
Thing<tm>. Thanks everybody! :)
The question of the primary hotel concept has been with us
since the very early days of DLV and has been a recurrent
theme each year in feedback.
The most frequently-cited concern is along the line of
the "slippery slope to a convention", and to mitigate
this concern I think that we need to understand that
the intended purpose of the primary hotel is that of a
lodging facility and not an activity venue and not a
"headquarters".
During this year's discussion I have heard nothing in
favor of moving any of our usual on-the-town activities
into a primary hotel. For those who wish to know the
history, the last time an "activities room" was in any
way proposed, it was prior to DLV 2001 and was voted
down by the volunteers 16 to 4. (Another measure on the
same ballot rejected a registration fee, unanimously,
20 to 0!)
The talking points in favor of a primary hotel converge
upon three concepts, "three Cs", those being convenience,
camaraderie, and comfort.
My personal opinion has not changed. I don't think we need
it (a primary hotel), but I'm not so opposed to it that I
feel a need to try to defeat it. If the gang wants it, I'll
be comfortable with it.
Please continue.
Thanks, gang. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel:
Britney writes:
>Regarding Primary Hotel Concept...
>On the surface it seems like a neat idea, having a primary
>hotel noted as a common meeting, carpooling, launch point,
>and maybe even for "check in" and other group supportive
>activities. However, when I have put myself to daydreaming
>about me and other DLV girls converging on any sort of
>mainstream hotel facility, I get a bad feeling. Why?
>Because we are very conspicuous in large numbers, either
>during transit, or upon convergence (especially) at any one
>location. I believe a planned, recurring convergence of DLV
>attendees at any one hotel creates an opportunity for members
>of the general public to behave at their worst (and to worry
>the more shy attendees, at a minimum). I DO think bad behavior
>from the public (upon witnessing a whole flock or just a
>steady stream of girls) is more likely at the corner of
>Paradise and Harmon (Hard Rock Hotel, St Tropez, Terribles),
>than in the casino or lobby of Paris or Ceasar's, for example.
>I have been twice to DLV, and both times I felt safest/most
>relaxed:
>- in a large-ish group: off-strip such as Blue Ox or a club,
>well away from the "unenlightened" masses
>- in a medium group, when we're on best behavior and dressing
>totally age/body-appropriate: at a mainstream, public, secure
>location (Paris cabaret or a show at night, lake cruise or
>museum during the day)
>- when we're wild and free and letting it all hang out
>(literally): in a very secure, dedicated location only
>- in lone or small numbers: just about anywhere, anytime,
>except seedy areas where no smart girl would go
>Now, if someone(s) could negotiate a great DLV rate at some
>mid/low-priced, LARGE hotel, (like IP) where we wouldn't all
>be tripping over each other giving the public a free drag
>show complete with heckling and bathroom security issues,
>that might be fine. However, we are like magnets. We like
>to stick together, and when we cluster in public, people
>notice. I don't mind being gawked at, or pointed at; but I
>don't care for heckling or worse.
>One last thing keeps coming to my mind: Let's face it, how
>cool would it be to all stay in one hotel, inexpensively,
>safely, with a small meeting room for check-ins, lost and
>found, fashion emergency support, etc? Well, it would be
>fabulous! But I think that would be a much more expensive,
>overhead-laden event than DLV is, and price it out of reach
>for a large share of attendees, and that would be a shame.
>I propose to avoid the primary hotel business, keep DLV
>casual, informal, avoiding too much structure. There's room
>in this world for both an informal, relatively-inexpensive
>DLV on one end, and a formal, spendy Southern Comfort type
>event on the other end. Or maybe a few of each, around the
>calendar, so everyone can get out from time to time within
>their means and wishes.
Thanks, Britney, good points.
I do agree with the concept of keeping DLV as informal and
simple as is practical.
While I don't think that the act of naming a primary hotel
will send us down a one-way track toward becoming SCC West,
you brought up the "M-word" (meeting room) which was a
persistent topic back in the days when I did have some
concern about us heading in the convention direction.
The procurement of common facilities (meeting room,
activity room, hospitality suite, office, etc.) in the
primary hotel is, in my mind, a line which we should
be very careful about crossing. More on this below.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Hotel:
Sarah writes:
>I guess the question I have is pretty basic. What's in
>it for me beyond what I already get from my attendance
>at DLV? The second part of the question would be What's
>it gonna cost?
To try to answer your question(s) ...
For you, as a long-time DLV attendee and volunteer who
regularly drives to DLV, it would give you the opportunity
for closer contact with others and a more convenient
opportunity to share the extra seats in your vehicle with
those who need them.
It may also give you a convenient rendezvous location for
people and vehicles for a multi-part activity.
As to what's it gonna cost? Hopefully nothing.
Any primary hotel proposal which has any real-world
out-of-pocket cost above and beyond what the attendees
would usually pay is a Bad Thing<tm>.
>In the past there have been enough activities scheduled
>throughout the week that I know where people will be most
>of the time. After the first event I will have made
>contact with others so I can arrange something ad hoc.
>Should that fail, it seems that Glamour Boutique had a
>few DLVers in their space everytime I stopped by. Vendors
>such as GB and the others opened their doors and we were
>welcome just about any time. I realize that to get to each
>of these locations I need to travel around a bit, but that
>hasn't seemed to be a problem for the majority of the
>attendees.
>In other words, I'm rarely without an option for my downtime.
>If this hospitality room (my assumption) is a part of the
>concept, who would staff it? The nature of Las Vegas in
>general and the DLV attendees specifically, make me think
>that we would be lucky to find people who actually wanted
>to stay in the room just to keep it as a resource for the
>group.
The wording of the motion currently open on the floor very
clearly indicates that common facilities (hospitality room,
etc.) are not part of the package. It does not expressly
prohibit it, however, but makes it very clear that such
facilities should not be assumed or planned for.
And yes, the drain on volunteer resources in order to
maintain an adequate staffing level needs to be taken
into consideration. IMAO, those peoples' efforts need
to be used for running activities, not standing watch
in a hospitality room.
>So what is the cost, and more important who gets stuck
>with it? I'm concerned that if a primary hotel is named
>some kind of special room rate is offered along with a
>room for group use in meeting or demonstrations, etc.
>if a specified number of rooms are sold for the week. If
>they don't sell the block of rooms that support that
>free space someone will get an unwelcome added expense
>to their vacation.
Yes, should common facilities be procurred, somebody is
going to be paying for it, directly or indirectly.
I really don't think that even with a designated primary
hotel, we would have enough buying power or collective
gaming action to warrant such things as meaningful discounts
and throw-ins such as a meeting or hospitality room.
Therefore, I'm very sure that lacking a sugar-mommy who
sees it as a priority, common facilities will not happen.
>I generally do the trip on a shoestring and would be
>reluctant to add a new cost where I don't see an obvious
>benefit to my selfish existance. I'm very comfortable with
>the hotel I use (i.e. it's off-the-strip cheap, I park close
>to the room, and I've never had a problem there), so I
>would be reluctant to move back to the strip unless it were
>a very special offer.
>What am I missing in the call for a primary hotel? I'm
>not looking just to rain on that parade, just still a
>little confused on the issue. Must be that I'm overlooking
>some benefit just because of my short attention span or an
>unfamiliarity the concept.
My hunch is that you're not really missing anything, but
failing to feel the need for a primary hotel. That feeling
is very familiar to me. :) :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three-hotel strategy:
Eileen writes:
>>narrow the recommendations to three - one budget, one
>>mid-market, and one upscale. None designated as "more
>I like the idea of three equal hotels (economy, main stream
>and upscale) as mini hubs. They would be a good meeting
>place and source of information.
>They would also be central places for volunteers to set up.
>DLV is a great time and should be kept as free and open as
>possible.
Thanks, Eileen. Should Kimberly raise this as a motion when
the floor clears, it looks like there will be a second. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel advantages:
Mindy writes:
>Perhaps if it is presented as a way to make it easier for
>those who want to share resources. For example big/little
>sisters, shared car rental, room shareing ect. It seems
>this would make these things a little easier but not make
>people feel they were obligated to stay there.
Thanks, Mindy.
Yes, this is a very good point in favor of a primary but
non-exclusive hotel.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel:
Kat writes:
>A primary hotel has advantages and disavantages. We just
>have to know what they are. We stay at the Sahara for the
>same reason as already pointed out we can afford it. If we
>could afford Paris or Bellagio well we might stay there but
>Sahara has cheap rooms and really how much time do you spend
>in your room?
>That being said I would vote against a primary hotel because
>then we do take a big step towards a closed convention type
>and I would really like to avoid that.
Thanks, Kat.
Again, same concern as others have raised.
Another good point that you've touched on is that our people
really do not spend that much time in their hotels.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hotels:
Kate writes:
>Hi.
Hewwo :)
>I apologize for not remembering who originally suggested a
>Primary hotel so I will respond in general.
I was the one who raised the motions. I'm not suggesting it
by any means, but I want this perennial question to be
settled this year, while we're in the "slow" season and
discussing overall event strategy.
>I can see your point and understand completely your wish
>to develop friendships reasonably early in the event.
>However, This is such a well organized and unique event
>that a Central Hotel would take some edge off the week of
>celebration.
>I can only speak for myself when I say that DLV, being a
>vacation opportunity and Not a convention is the main
>reason I was drawn to it for my debut, There's an
>abundance of conventions for us to pick from and
>being closeted in a central hotel at a T convention
>was definitely not what I needed at the time or even
>Now for that matter. If that's all I wanted I would pick
>one closer to my home and likely book a room and drive to
>it. but I know I wouldn't have had the fun I had at DLV.
>There's also a slight downer to the idea too which isn't
>discussed a lot. Even though you meet some really nice
>people at a central hotel there will always be one or two
>who you would like to avoid at all costs. Know what I mean?
>The in your face bare assed show my suspenders uncouth
>types who could be just down the hall.... Now think about
>meeting them in the lobby during the day when you are
>dressed nicely and on your way to High tea or something
>similar and having to say" Oh Hi. how are you"
>Uncomfortable Hugs to follow!!!
>A primary hotel would be nice for some I suppose but most
>people know Vegas and have their special places they like
>to stay when they visit and it's so easy to get around
>there too. If this were in Atlanta. Detroit or Dallas
>a central hotel would be the best option but it's not.
>Try it. You'll love the freedom!
>No rudeness intended, I don't do that. This is just My
>personal observation.
Thanks, Kate. Again, good talking points.
No, not everyone is going to get along with everyone else.
I don't think that forced camaraderie is anyone's intention
here with any of the proposals.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative suggestion:
Holly writes:
>I have been giving this whole concept a lot of thought and
>if it is not out of order, I would like to propose a substitute
>motion to the motion currently under discussion.
Thanks, Holly.
I'm going to be making a "command decision" here on the
raising of the substitute motion.
The question covered by the motion currently open (primary
hotel) needs to be answered, directly and explicitly. It's
been a recurring issue for countless years and we need to
let the motion take its course and pass or fail. We need
to settle the "primary hotel" question once and for all. I
expect the question to be called in 1-2 more list cycles
unless some fresh talking points are introduced.
In reading the text of your motion, I don't see it as being
mutually exclusive with the current motion. In other words,
your proposal would work whether the current motion carries
or fails, so let's consider your motion to be "in the queue",
standing alone, and open for a second and discussion just as
soon as the current question is called.
><Begin Substitute Motion>
>I move that each hotel where four (4) or more DLV attendees
>are registered have one person designated as Hotel Hostess/Host.
>The duties of the Hotel Hostess/Host shall be as follows:
>Facilitate social interaction among attendees staying at
>their hotel. This shall be accomplished by pre-arranging
>at least one (1) daily informal meet and greet at the hotel.
>The location and time of the meet shall be at the sole
>discretion of the Hostess/Host and will be announced in the
>final mailing to all attendees. The Host/Hostess may choose
>an assistant at their discretion.
>The DLV Organizers shall send each Hotel Hostess/Host a list
>via email of all attendees who are staying at their hotel,
>much like event coordinators receive a list of who is signed
>up for their event.
><End Substitute Motion>
>This would accomplish at least a couple of things...
>1) Keep us out of the, "This hotel is better than that
>hotel" business.
>2) Provide an informal setting for attendees to get to
>know the others who are straying in the same hotel they
>are staying in. It would also provide an opportunity for
>people to arrange for carpooling/taxi sharing, should they
>so choose. It may even make some sense for the Hostess/Host
>to check-in attendees for DLV. That would necessitate the
>registration materials being divided among the Hostesses/Hosts
>and a different arrangement would be necessary for local
>DLVers and those staying in locations where there is no
>Hostess/Host (this is probably a whole different discussion
>but perhaps a possibility we want to explore). For new
>attendees in particular, this should be a great opportunity
>to begin developing friendships and start to associate faces
>to names.
>When they start attending events, they will at least see
>some people they recognize.
>Yes, I realize that this is an additional volunteer resource
>that needs filling, but I do believe that the task is not
overburdening.
>The only thing they would have to "arrange" is determining
>a location on the hotel property to meet. In many cases,
>I suspect one if the hotel eateries or watering holes
>would be fine. This may be a way we can coax a few more
>folks into the ranks of the volunteers! :o) If this
>motion succeeds, I would be happy to volunteer to be the
>Hotel Hostess/Host coordinator and assist the Hotel
>Hostesses/Hosts in getting their program put together.
I must admit that this is a very good example of the "out
of the box" thinking that we've tried to encourage. One of
the more innovative ideas presented this year and you do
warrant a number of positive strokes for this! :) We need
to encourage innovative thinking and proposals.
I do believe that this approach is equally workable whether
or not we have a "more suggested" primary hotel or not.
Now, for my concerns, and I would like to hear comments
from the gang on this ...
My primary concern is that of the overall volunteer effort
required, and the limits of our volunteer resources. With
a threshold for your plan of four individuals in any hotel,
I can easily foresee 10 or so hotels to which this could
apply, whether or not one of them is designated as primary.
That's 10 volunteers! Do we have enough willing volunteers
to cover all hotels?
A related concern is the formality and the logistics which
are involved in pulling off such things as a daily get-
together in each hotel where we have four or more people.
Is this approach appropriate to both hotels where smaller
groups (4 or so) are staying and to the 1-2 hotels which
attract much larger groups of our attendees?
Do we want or need daily get-togethers in multiple hotels?
Is this something we want to look into and consider?
Comments, gang?
. . . . .
>For those unfamiliar with the concept of substitute motions,
>I offer the following explanation:
>Adopting a Substitute Motion
>Robert's prescribes the following procedure. If "Motion A"
>is the main motion, and if no current amendments to the
>motion are on the floor, a member may move to offer a
>substitute. The move must be seconded. Once the second is
>obtained, the procedure is as follows:
>Motion A (the original motion) is debated and amended.
>Motion B (the proposed substitute motion) is debated and amended.
>The Chair then puts to the body the question of whether or
>not to substitute Motion B for Motion A. Note, at this point
>the body is merely voting to substitute Motion B for Motion
>A; it is not voting to adopt Motion B.
>The vote is a simple majority. After the vote to substitute
>is taken, debate on the motion to adopt begins.
>See, Roberts, Article 2.12.33.
I am not a parliamentarian, nor do I play one on line. I am
familiar with Roberts somewhat.
We really do not apply Roberts here except in one case.
Our well-established procedure here is to deliberate by
informal discussion unless a decision has to be made which
cannot be decided by consensus and needs a formal method of
decision. In that case we use a modified "Roberts" scheme
of motion/second/discussion/vote to keep order and make the
decision.
I would like to continue to use our established method and
not get caught up in the technicalities of procedure. We need
to keep our focus on the strategy and planning of the event.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2010 organizational list.
One address for all items regarding this list, additions, removals,
changes, submissions, questions, etc.:
dlvorg@geekbabe.com <--- NOTE: all lower case
Diva Las Vegas 2010
Dates to be announced
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org10arc/
To unsubscribe: Simply reply to this message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in either the Subject: field or the first line of an OTHERWISE BLANK
message body. The word "unsubscribe" (case is insignificant) should be
the only item in the subject field or the first line of the message,
justified to the left.
To send material to this list: Send submission as regular e-mail to
the address: dlvorg@geekbabe.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 09:56:46 CDT