The Raku Conference #262
Comments
|
I like this idea and think that this is exactly the right time to be thinking through this issue. A couple of fairly minor points:
I'd push pretty hard for a Matrix/Jitsi alternative. It seemed to work well for FOSDEM and should be even more stable by the time we're talking about. I (and many Rakoons) personally value that sort of free software, and I'd be willing to put in some extra work to make that platform work. Perhaps even more importantly, I think that the Raku conf will be a high-visibility moment for Raku, and so it makes sense to reinforce the Raku == free software connection rather than undermine it.
Bikeshedding a bit on the name: how would you feel about |
|
Both con.raku.org and conf.raku.org are fine, or course. |
I would be interested to help out to make more use out of free software where possible in Raku events.
I'd go with |
|
conf.raku.org would have my vote as well, as "con" has negative connotations. |
I see what you did there. |
|
conf.raku.org gets my vote also. I really like the conference idea and will make plans to attend (and possibly present if looking for presenters). I wanted to attend FOSDEM this year but ended up needing the sleep more.
Pm
…On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 08:27:05AM -0800, Patrick Spek wrote:
> I'd push pretty hard for a Matrix/Jitsi alternative.
I would be interested to help out to make more use out of free software where possible in Raku events.
> Bikeshedding a bit on the name
I'd go with `conf.raku.org`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#262 (comment)
|
|
OK, looks like we agreed on the domain name:
|
|
As for the software, I personally have no issues with working with paid/non-open-source software, and I'd avoid investing in learning something "non-standard" :) |
|
Open source does not mean "free". Jitsi has commercial options, if we don't
really want to have the infrastructure. Matrix.org + Jitsi was really
amazing in Fosdem, however. It would be a great option.
Date: we should be well clear of TPCiC, for instance. In that sense, May is
probably a better option.
El jue, 11 feb 2021 a las 19:29, Andrew Shitov (<notifications@github.com>)
escribió:
… As for the software, I personally have no issues with working with
paid/non-open-source software, and I'd avoid investing learning something
"non-standard" :)
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#262 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAAD5EYG7KKVREFQS6HMZ3S6QOW7ANCNFSM4XOYO7YQ>
.
--
JJ
|
|
free as in beer = good [1] ahhh - so what is the anticipated size of audience? 10, 100, 1000? |
|
To be clear, I also certainly have no issue working with non-open-source software – I'm typing this comment on GitHub, after all 😁 But I do like to use/support FOSS software if and when I can, and it seems to me that there's a natural overlap between people who are/might be interested in free software and people who are/might be interested in Raku (something I discussed a bit in my Fosdem talk). And using Matrix + Jitsi seems like an especially good fit given that, as JJ said, that combo worked really well for Fosdem and I'm guessing we could borrow a good bit of their setup. In fact, Fosdem was a lot better than any Zoom meeting I've participated in (largely because their setup increased the prominence of the chat in a way that created much more of a community feeling). |
|
In any case, the last word in software choice is behind the person(s) who will actually be using it during the event and who will be responsible for the streaming/etc. |
|
@p6steve I would expect ±30 people as a good start. |
|
|
Well, we should not stop someone from preparing a recoding but I think that interacting is still fine. And especially if you manage to see the faces/smiles/etc (probably you need a separate monitor though). Of course, the big plus of a recording is that we are less dependent on speaker's network quality and speed. OK, agree, to record or not to record is an open question. |
|
Maybe we can get some input about the pre-recording from the online Fosdem speakers/organizers... |
|
@nxadm I made a recording and decided to cancel my talk after that :D |
I'm a bit more optimitic than that! @JJ probably knows better than I do (since he was one of the dev room organizers) but I believe the Perl+Raku dev room had ~150 people in it. That probably includes some people who were there just for Perl and others who were "at" Fosdem and decided to stop by. On the other hand, I bet the main Raku conference will attract some people who didn't make it to Fossdem (especially if we can adopt more of a compromise/global time). So I'd hope we can hit aim for ~75 – and I'd want any infrastructure we spin up/rent to be able to accommodate over 100. That said, I'm not sure what the attendance was last year. If it was significantly lower than that, it's possible that I'm being too optimistic – it certainly wouldn't be the first time! |
|
There were 194 checked-in people in Riga in 2019. |
|
@codesections I saw 147 members in the Matrix room late Saturday, it may have increased on Sunday. |
I think it did but, one, I think that was a total count of unique visitors, so the number went up on Sunday even though the Sunday attendance was lower overall. Two, the people who came Sunday were mostly there for the Advent of Code talk, which didn't really have a Raku connection. I definitely noticed a spike in attendance right after my talk anyway :D (Not that I blame them – the AoC talk was really interesting and I half wanted to duck out of my own Q&A period to watch the beginning!) |
|
It feels to me that attendance isn't the most significant matter here. I'd be more interested in resolving items 2 (sponsor) and 4 (TRF). @codesections off-top: can you find my emails or reach me out on IRC? |
Actually, I'm trying to grab hold of actual analytics... But I consider @ash 's a good ballpark. |
|
OT: @vrurg I was actually already talking with Nige about your email. You can expect something from me today 👍 |
|
The nice thing about an entirely virtual event is that the need for sponsorship is substantially less than for in person. A paid Zoom account for 300 in a room is roughly the same as two nights in a hotel for one person (and maybe I could convince If folks can make it work with FLOSS and/or beerfree stuff without too much extra effort, even better. |
Sure, you're totally right. Yet, having a backup would make me sleep better. :) |
|
Let me just highlight the point by @JJ regarding the date: "Date: we should be well clear of TPCiC, for instance. In that sense, May is probably a better option." |
|
On Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2021 20:21:58 CET p6steve wrote:
free as in beer = good
free as in open = would be nice, but not at the cost of going off the beaten
track, particularly if that is a pain for our audience[1]
Well that surely means that using the FOSDEM setup is the way to go? After all
that track has been beaten by 33600 attendees watching 25 simultaneous tracks
with apparently about zero issues. How much more proven can anything be? I've
only heard good things and about satisfied users so far.
|
|
It's not only about proofs, it is also about "who will make it possible". |
Is May 15 good enough? |
|
Looks fine to me.
|
|
WRT the Raku Foundation: In what way is it related to the conference? If it's unrelated (apart from both dealing with distinction from Perl), shall we discuss this separately? |
|
@patrickbkr as it is said in the original comment: "(deserves a separate ticket)". |
I'm confused by these numbers, if they're referring to FOSDEM. I don't think they've released attendance numbers for this year, but the closing talk noted that they were down from last year (~8,000). On the other hand, they apparently had 114 tracks. It doesn't really matter for us – 8k and 33k are both well more than we need to plan for. But I am curious about where those numbers came from. |
|
On Freitag, 12. Februar 2021 16:59:47 CET Daniel Sockwell wrote:
I'm confused by these numbers, if they're referring to FOSDEM. I don't
think they've released attendance numbers for this year, but the closing
talk noted that they were down from last year (~8,000). On the other hand,
they apparently had 114 tracks. It doesn't really matter for us – 8k and
33k are both well more than we need to plan for. But I am curious about
where those numbers came from.
https://nitter.nixnet.services/_ShinIce/status/1358461185537044488
"we have an estimation of ~33.6k attendees for the conference and ~20k
attendees"
25 is the number of simultaneous tracks, the 114 were spread out over the
weekend.
Cheers,
Stefan
|
|
I propose to declare Jitsy the winner in this duel. The dates. I doubt May is reasonable choice. It could be if we form a group of 3-5 organizers who will do everything and post conference announcement no later than the first decade of March. We must keep in mind that TPRC is already announced for Jun 9-11. I personally would like to prepare at least two talks, one for each conference. With my current situation this could be a hard task. Besides, as people tend to remember "the last word", TPRC could overshadow TRC. For this reason August or even September look like good alternatives. Also, I don't want TRC to be treated as TPRC competitor, which would likely happen if it's held in May. |
|
Ignore this comment. vrurg already noticed.
|
|
The TRPC planning discussions are mostly happening in the TPF Slack these days, in the various |
|
Anyone willing to volunteer to build the streaming system? |
|
I decided it is not yet time to make a conference. UPDATE: If you are confused by this comment, here are the thoughts behind it: #269 (comment) |
|
I'm sorry to hear that. Would you object to other people trying to organize a Raku Conference? |
TL;DR
Let us have an online Raku-only event this year.
Pre-thoughts
It is quite unlikely that we'll meet offline for an annual conference this year. Although I have a reservation in Riga for August and there were other groups wanting to host a conference, the chances people will want to come are low. Even if the restrictions are lifted by that time.
The second question is whether it's time to start being independent from the Perl or Perl+Raku events. The recent FOSDEM, for example, had a schedule mixed from both languages, which was kind of strange if you never heard of Perl, for example. We don't want to be pulled back by Perl in any aspects etc. etc. (No wars here, but if it was decided that Raku is a separate language, let's walk that path.) While not rejecting the Raku talks at a Perl+Raku event, it may be a good thing to have a dedicated Main Raku Event.
Possible solution details
conference.raku.org, with a/2021appendix for the year.To be defined
I believe this is an initial draft, and there are more questions to think about.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: