From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Mon Aug 31 2009 - 09:01:29 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Primary hotel - wrapping up
Primary hotel
Hotel strategy
Hotel get-togethers
Hotel gatherings
Hotel gatherings
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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel - wrapping up:
I think it's time to start the 48 hour "timer" now and work
toward calling the question on the primary hotel motion. If
no new talking points on the primary hotel motion are heard
by Wednesday morning, we'll call for votes.
Personally, I still don't know. I can't recall ever voting
ABSTAIN on any DLV ballot measure, but this may be. I am
very undecided as to whether or not a primary hotel would
be beneficial to the DLV program as a whole.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel:
Kumiko writes:
>I agree with Gina, Britney, and others that are saying
>not to have a primary hotel.
>Every year we have a list of recommended hotels based on
>DLV criteria with no numerical listing, some more
>attended than others, and I think its the best way to do
>this.
>It removes one more decision our group has to make every
>year deciding on a primary or bunch of primary hotels or
>permutations of such. That time can be better spent
>planning DLV events.
>All the good or even bad hotels/casinos can be listed and
>reasons, based on DLV needs, and no further decisions have
>to be made. It can be listed to show how many attendees
>in the past have stayed or continue to stay at that
>particular hotel. If one decides to stay at a hotel that
>many others use, then they can choose to stay at that
>hotel. The list should be enough to help those looking
>for hotels they that want to stay at during DLV.
>Attendees will stay where they want to, based on their own
>criteria. We see this diversity already in this discussion.
>Having a primary hotel may pressure some to thinking they
>have to go to that hotel, and if more attend one hotel,
>the questions of more public exposure, safety, and
>problems associated with larger numbers of attendees at
>one location, visibility of being read due to the larger
>number of others walking around, or being in larger groups
>and read in larger groups at any hotel will be increased,
>with possible increased problems associated with larger
>groups, and easier for those red necks to find those that
>they want to verbally heckle.
>Having just a recommended list removes the need to have 2,
>or 3, or more variations of primary hotels at different
>costs, amenities, services etc. We will just have them all
>listed and categorized if needed or wanted based on cost or
>other criteria.
>We can make a list of who is staying at what hotel
>available, so those in the same hotel can get together
>if they want to via dlvdisc or other ways of contacting
>each other or at DLV, leaving it open for them to get
>together or organize something.
>It will not make it a requirement to have a meet and
>greet hostess at each hotel based on a certain number
>of people that are staying at a particular hotel. As
>pointed out this may require alot of people.
>But if they want to they can form their own meet and
>greet at that hotel, instead of making it a formal DLV
>action.
>This avoids any unwanted greetings from those a person
>is trying to avoid, or those that want privacy.
What I hear you saying is "It ain't broke, don't fix it",
and that's very close to the way I feel about it. My
only consideration is that it (primary hotel) may be
beneficial to those who need a bit more of a "connection"
to the overall DLV program in order to help them more
fully participate.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hotel strategy:
Vivian Chen writes:
>Holly has a good point in getting certain groups (Big
>Sister, carpool) to meet so they don't feel like they
>are alone.
>I'm not a voting member but how about a recommended (not
>mandatory) hotel for people who do not have the comfort
>level to be on their own and would like some support.
If I'm hearing you correctly on this, your last sentence
describes what's open on the floor now, a non-exclusive
non-mandatory hotel recommended for those who wish to
be staying near the others, for whatever reason.
>Having a hostess/volunteer there would make sense. This
>will not affect the ladies who want to pick their own
>hotel and we don't need alot of volunteers. Kinda like
>training wheels.
Thanks, Vivian.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hotel get-togethers:
Holly writes:
>>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
>The number "four" was plucked out of the air. I would have
>no issue with the number being amended, if necessary :o).
As I think of this idea more, it might be good to control
this (the drain on volunteer resources) by applying your
program to the suggested hotels, which could be as few as
three this coming year (should Kimberly indeed raise a
planned motion) and has been as many as six in previous
years.
This also covers the issue of tracking who is staying where.
At registration time, we normally list the suggested hotels
on the "where staying" drop box. Leaving the number of hotels
for your program open requires such things as many more
options on the drop box or a fill-in field in order to more
accurately track who is staying where and when the threshold
is reached on each hotel.
>My main thought was to avoid staffing condos and such. As
>for the number of volunteers needed to administer the plan,
>this could very well be one of those activities that new
>volunteers would gravitate toward. If planned correctly,
>it would be very low maintenance and would involve
>absolutely no traveling.
>>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.
>The vision I have for the daily get together is one of
>being very informal, with the only formailty being a
>predertermined location, having a cup of coffee together,
>for example.
>The hostess/host would basically be a facilitator,
>providing information on the various venues for the day
>(or following day in the case of an evening ), providing
>an opportunity for transportation to be arranged, sharing
>room numbers for those interested, answering questions
>like, "Does this skirt make my butt look too big?"
>The idea of checking people in, while mentioned in my
>points, is not a part of the motion. However, should
>it be determined that it would be a Good Thing (tm) to
>do, managing the check-in for 4-20 people would be
>substantially less effort than managing the check-in
>for the entire group.
Check-in probably does not need to be in the motion as
it's more of a logistics issue. I admit that it would take
some of the load off of the check-in volunteers and give
the attendees a well-known location at which they could
check in. With the simplified name tag system, it would
not be difficult to equip the hotel hostesses with the
necessary supplies.
>>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?
>As far as I am concerned, the biggest difference would be
>the location choosen for the meet-up. A small group (4-8)
>would probably have no problem being seated in a hotel
>coffee shop. This could be problematic for larger groups.
>But there are altrernatives. Some hotels have food courts
>with casual seating. Others have well-known landmarks (the
>gardens at the Beligio, ie). Still others, large shopping
>areas with well known stores that could be named as a place
>to meet in front of. There are a number of ways the
>logistics can be addressed.
Would you object to an understanding (probably does not
need to be part of the motion) that the predetermined
locations are to be locations which are open to the public,
as opposed to something like "room 2488"? I'm trying to
head off any concerns that this moves things in a closeted
direction in any way.
>>Do we want or need daily get-togethers in multiple hotels?
>Perhaps I need to clarify something. The daily get-togethers
>would NOT be mandatory (well, except for the Hostess/Host).
LOL! Try making ANYTHING mandatory! :)
#include <joann_herding_cats.h>
>If people have had their needs met after the first day or
>two, then fine, they can be off and on their way. However,
>due to the transitory nature of our group and the arrivals
>and departures happening throughout the week, I do believe
>the opportunity to get together daily does need to occur.
>>Is this something we want to look into and consider?
>One other point... this program takes DLV to the attendee;
>right in their Home Away From Home. The mountain is coming
>to them, rather than them having to go to the mountain.
>One re-occuring complaint we see from year to year, is that
>it is hard to get to know people. I love the big events
>like the Welcome Party, but let's be honest, for a new
>person who may be shy about being out in public to begin
>with, breaking the ice at such a large function can be
>very daunting. And next year, if the schedule has the
>Welcome Party on the second day, rather than the first,
>they could be even more lost, not knowing anyone and
>wondering what to do on day number one. If they have
>signed up for a Big Sister, that's great, but not all
>first timers do.
>I have lots more to say, but I'll save it for another time. ;o)
Thanks, Holly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hotel gatherings:
Kat writes:
>I think Holly's idea is a good one and even though I am a
>new volunteer I would volunteer for the hotel we are
>staying at either as the hostess or assistant to whoever
>would be there.
>P.S. I mean I am seconding the motion
Thanks, Kat.
Although the motion is not officially open for a second
until the floor clears (possibly Wednesday), we'll put
this in the queue as well and we'll consider the motion
to be seconded as soon as the current question (primary
hotel) is called.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hotel gatherings:
Kate writes:
>I must say the Hotel hostess idea is a nice concept and
>likely will float in 2010. If I do Diva in 2010 I wouldn't
>mind at all being one of the contact people.
>I suspect not a lot of the hostesses will want to give out
>their Cell phone numbers on a public forum like ours but
>this might be done with some Pre-DLV e-mails with a
>particular hotel lounge/Bar and a set time for the first
>day in mind as a first step to some serious pre event
>congregating.
>There will likely be some who stay at these places who
>would prefer to go it alone and then some middle of the
>roaders who will drop by occasionally and some who will
>wholeheartedly embrace the idea so yes I think this is
>an excellent idea.
Thanks, Kate.
It appears that there is a degree of support for this
idea. We now have (provisionally) two volunteers for this.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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