From: annie (dlvdisc@geekbabe.com)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 20:47:28 CDT
Yvonne writes:
>The dates were discussed in the DLVorg group. It was no secret, and
>anyone attending DLV with email access could have joined in the group
>and added their opinions in the discussions. The dates were also
>brought up in general dlv email listings and there was a time period
>for discussion before the dates were determined. (Annie please correct
>me where I'm wrong). This has been the process for quite a few years.
You are correct. This has been the process we've used since 2000, when
planning for DLV 2001.
Another good point is that the planning process and the decision-making
process is open to all. We can't force anybody to participate, but the
invitation to do so has always been there.
>If there is enough stating that the dates change, do we really really
>need to change the dates or work around them to make it possible for
>the most to attend? Can there be any other possiblities than changing
>the official dates?
I think there's a win-win possibility here, but it will take some
cooperation, and yes, some compromise by both those who are happy with
the agreed-upon dates and those who are unhappy.
There were suggestions here to consider adjusting the dates.
There is now a motion to do so that has been presented to the DLVORG
group. This will appear in the upcoming mailing of the ORG list, which
is the correct forum to decide upon organizational aspects of DLV.
>My understanding, Annie is one of the founders of DLV, is at the helm
>of DLV, and has done, to me, a beyond excellent job, spending untold
>many many thankless hours on this event. If the DLV concept was
>designed to be before or after a tech convention, and a 'vacation' and
>not a 'convention', then so be it. These are the parameters we will
>work with.
DLV was not designed to coincide with N+I, but it has done so. I think
there's still a misunderstanding of the degree to which N+I influenced
the votes for the agreed-upon timeframe. It's my distinct impression
that only a minority of those casting votes for the 3-8 (or 17-22)
timeframe considered N+I to be a major factor in their decision.
>If someone else or a group wants to change this basic concept with this
>growing group of attendees and try another modifed concept/ convention/
>or whatever during the time of DLV or at another time of the year, Annie
>has always given the go ahead and plan their own thing.
>Comments Annie?
Well, since you asked. :) :)
There are a few well-established principles that have been with us
since day two. :) Those being such things as the venue (Las Vegas),
the approximate timeframe (spring), and yes, the fact that we are not
a convention.
It's been brought up a number of times that if we would adopt the
FanFair clone model for DLV, and promote maximum growth, DLV could
easily become larger than any of the existing conventions.
I don't question this at all.
It's even been implied that it should be our duty to grow DLV as much as
possible.
This I do question.
Over the past couple years I haven't heard nearly as much of a calling
to morph into a convention as I heard during the "middle years" of DLV.
I think those who at the time were only familiar with the FanFair clone
model now appreciate DLV for the singularity it is.
The reverse has in fact happened. Organizers of conventions have told me
that they want to plan more DLV-like activities in their events.
But to get to your point ... if a traditional t* convention in Las Vegas
is a priority for enough people, then it will happen. However, I still
cannot see such a convention replacing what we now know as DLV.
I've found evidence of (at least) two attempts to start a more or less
traditional t* convention in Las Vegas, neither of which really took
off.
On the other hand, we're not the only ones doing the V-not-C thing. We
do seem to be the one with the most web exposure, but there are others.
There's one coming up for H'ween, in fact. (If you're interested, look
around, you'll find it.) :)
. . . . .
>There has been alot of discussion on activites. Please, lets not kill
>the creative process to find new activities that people want to do.
>Yes, continue to bring out any concerns that should be addressed with
>any event. But temper stating your final judgement and comments of a
>event before it happens, and suggest positive changes.
I do think that we need to concentrate (more) on activity planning,
particularly the larger general-interest activities such as shows,
dinners, larger Quality Social Time<tm> activities, etc.
Our day-to-day and hour-to-hour sequence of activity is the "guts" of
DLV, and I do think it warrants our prime focus of attention. There's
already a rich and diverse set of special-interest daytime activities on
the plate, more so than in any other DLV to date. We do need to start
thinking about our evening activities a bit more, though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 18 2004 - 22:42:15 CDT