| |||||||||||||
2 clarifications2 clarificationsPosted Jan 24, 2006 0:55 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: Suits and Patents: A Report from the GPLv3 Launch Conference
First clarification is that the discussion groups that half the audience went to after lunch were actually meetings for the committees which will, roughly, act as an interface from the public to FSF during the process. So it wasn't "now we'll give special time to important people", it was to get the members of the committees to know eachother and to work out how communication will happen during the next 12 months.
Second clarification is that while "200+ attendees" is correct, it is inprecise by 200. The room at 450 chairs and maybe 50 were empty. The steepness of the incline was deceptive. (Note: some people wanting to come were unable to get visa's or were turned away by USA immigration - others decided not to come because entering the USA carries the requirements of fingerprinting and of having personal information transfered to the government of USA).
(Log in to post comments)
2 clarifications Posted Jan 25, 2006 13:46 UTC (Wed) by dyork (guest, #2819) [Link] > First clarification is that the discussion groups...Good to know. This was not clear to the folks who were sitting there. All we knew were that half the audience was gone and RMS and Eben Moglen were nowhere to be seen. It makes sense for the FSF to do this and I commend them on organizing it that way. Apparently when Eben Moglen returned later he was to talk about the process and these committees may have been discussed then, but ufortunately I had to leave prior to that so I don't know what he precisely said. My critique was not that the FSF held these separate sessions. It was a sensible use of time and people to do so. My issue was that there was essentially no communication to the remainder of folks and if you missed the very brief mention at the very start of the conference that there were going to be discussion groups at lunch, you had no idea what was going on. Again, this was a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. > Second clarification is that while "200+ attendees" is correct, it is inprecise by 200. When Eben Moglen was finishing his speech and talking about opening the session up to questions, I sat there and counted the number of people in the room as I figured there would be the most people there at the time - and people had not yet started to leave. Then just to be sure I counted again. Both times I wound up a bit over 200. That's how I came up with the number.
|
|||||||||||||