Wineconf thoughts for next year

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at rogers.com
Tue May 3 17:47:52 CDT 2005


On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:11:24PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> However, I think we need to recognize that we Wine hackers
> are badly addicted to Internet access, and I think we need
> to set aside a formal time on day 1 to make sure that all
> access is good.  We did have mounting frustrations over
> the connectivity, only getting it all ironed out midway
> through day two.  I found myself being increasingly
> distracted by the problems until we finally ironed it out.

I agree that most of us are badly addicted to Internet.
For this reason, I think it is counterproductive that
we do have access during talks. There is very little
reason to have it, it would be like providing internet
access at the Opera :) [1] It has a negative impact on 
the general 'feel' of the audience, it is distracting 
and uninviting to the speakers.

After not seen each other for a year, and spending
time, energy and money to attend, we can't do for
a *few* hours without internet access? Are we that bad?
And if we are, do we really need to encourage it?
If the talks are so boring, why expand all these
resources to meet in the first place?

I think it is essential to have Internet access, but
*outside* the conference. This way people can get
their email done, maybe code up a patch, etc after
the talks.

Instead, we had the reverse situation: no Internet
access outside the conference, but we did get it
during the talks. And what did we do? Check email,
write patches, etc. when we should have been listening.
For this reason, the second day we had a much less
focused audience.

And yes, I can see Juan's point that IRC is good.
If that's the case, we can have a network without
the Internet. But with all the good, long breaks
we had in between, can't we focus for 1h at a time?

-- 
Dimi.

[1] No, we are not as good as Opera singers, but we try our best ;)




More information about the wineconf mailing list