| |||||||||||||
The dark side of open source conferencesThe dark side of open source conferencesPosted Dec 2, 2010 23:35 UTC (Thu) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)In reply to: The dark side of open source conferences by lutchann Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences
You are suggesting a contract where you pay in advance for a service but have no claw-back clause (or its bigger, scarier brother the indemnity clause)? That would be foolish. If the organisers fight the application of the clause, well that's just another way of asking which party spent real money on lawyers during the sponsorship negotiations. I don't care if a conference adopts a strategy which involves Val's suggestions or not. That's not the sort of detail you put in a contract. What goes in a contract is measurable outcomes. That doesn't preclude an event using Val's suggestions as a means for reaching those outcomes.
(Log in to post comments)
The dark side of open source conferences Posted Dec 3, 2010 0:28 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
No, I'm saying any conference willing to contractually guarantee good behavior of its attendees is foolish.
If you want to require that conference organizers vet presentations for offensive content, promptly eject attendees for inappropriate comments and behavior, and encourage women to participate, then that's fine. There's plenty of precedent for that.
If you want the ability to unilaterally terminate your obligations and recover previously-made payments because an attendee alleged that another attendee groped her in a pub at 1am, then you're going to run into some resistance, and rightly so.
|
|||||||||||||