gistfile1.txt

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Received: by 10.68.21.4 with SMTP id r4mr1021333pbe.19.1311526625148;
        Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: boostcon-plan@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.33.193 with SMTP id t1ls4731741pbi.0.gmail; Sun, 24 Jul
 2011 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.0.167 with SMTP id 7mr867307pbf.23.1311526624663;
        Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.0.167 with SMTP id 7mr867306pbf.23.1311526624651;
        Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <ra...@rrsd.com>
Received: from fed1rmfepo103.cox.net (fed1rmfepo103.cox.net [68.230.241.145])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a1si6084324pbs.1.2011.07.24.09.57.02;
        Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.145 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ra...@rrsd.com) client-ip=68.230.241.145;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.145 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ra...@rrsd.com) smtp.mail=ra...@rrsd.com
Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71])
          by fed1rmfepo103.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20110724165702.ZYIU3904.fed1rmfepo103.cox....@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>
          for <boostcon-plan@googlegroups.com>;
          Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:57:02 -0400
Received: from rrsd01 ([68.6.125.42])
	by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id Bswy1h00d0v0ABG03sx25P; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:57:02 -0400
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A02020B.4E2C4EDE.0057,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=gWJ3tSwlVG9+9Bc0QwsTfgzr7y6rw8iGroUsY2aLSe8=
 c=1 sm=1 a=VQvvVNYmkKAA:10 a=6GGbMd7TN6UA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10
 a=ikzbfajPApPFeoaZ7vkULQ==:17 a=argexTkDAAAA:8 a=k9-Q9NdQx_Gktine-YgA:9
 a=mDXmiS3SW1OnkKz8Z-IA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=PBy5WzlXw48A:10
 a=UkXPfX9tyn6QuHsB:21 a=OJbXT-dyls_G5N90:21 a=ikzbfajPApPFeoaZ7vkULQ==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Authentication-Results: cox.net; none
From: "Robert Ramey" <ra...@rrsd.com>
To: <boostcon-plan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: questions about BoostCon concept
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:58:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-Reply-To: <CAGg_6+PN_0deqO4YorMUfUr40kXG5qDPSyFvgArw0O1JLDw...@mail.gmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Thread-Index: AcxJ0jbnqEskljtdRj6AEaXLPkqqzQATXRqw
Message-Id: <20110724165702.ZYIU3904.fed1rmfepo103.cox....@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>

 
>>On 23 July 2011 13:56, Robert Ramey <ra...@rrsd.com> wrote:

>>a) no third track
>>b) leave "academic flavor" of conference as it is.
>>c) invest efforts which would otherwise be invested in the third track
>>in getting more and better proposals for presentation.

>Er, isn't getting more presentations basically adding a third track?

Only if the percentage of proposals accepted remained the same - currently
at 100%

When I went to previous BoostCon, it was mentioned "I'm thinking we should
be rejecting more proposals".  I agree with this but would have phrased it
as - 
"I would like to have a wider range and larger number of proposals to choose
from."
I pay my own way when I go to the conference so I weigh the cost/value.  I
looked
at the program and didn't see a heck of a lot I hadn't seen the year before
or wasn't on the list.  I believe that others might have felt similar as it
seems that attendence was slightly off compared to the year before.  I loved
going to conference and enjoyed rubbing elbows with my solemates - but I
couldn't
justify attendence just based on that.  So I think that efforts to make the
program stronger would be more effective than making the the program
"bigger"
by adding a third track.  Basically, we boosters are the "Opus Dei" or 
"Jesuits" of C++.  We want our religion in ever stronger does (proto)
rather than a watered down version for the masses. (third track).
(The above is hyperbole - please don't post a serious response above to
the above comment).

>The idea for evolving the conference was met with great enthusiasm at both
the 
>BoostCon 2012 Kickoff and Future of Boost sessions at BoostCon this year.  
>It is the direction the current attendees want the conference to go in.

I wasn't there, but I have no reason to doubt this.  And of course I
agree that BoostCon, Boost, and C++ needs to evolve (just like everything
else).
I disagree that adding a third track is the right direction to evolve.
I also realize that my view is in the minority.  This is pretty typical
as when I agree with the consensus, I usually don't have any motivation
to lauch a post.

>While I understand your frustration, you'll never get the masses to pay for
videos. 

Maybe, maybe not. But this really isn't Boost's problem.  In any case, this
thread has
convinced me that tying this video idea to BoostCon was a bad idea.  
 
>There are already high quality (both content and production values) C++
videos freely 
>available from companies such as Microsoft and Google.

Really? that's big news to me.  Google coding standards actually proscribe
almost all
of boost.  I've never seen anything like this - do you have link to these
freely
avaible videos addressing Advanced C++/Boost.  I would be very interested in
seeing this.

>We have high quality content.  Maybe it would be a better use of any 
>corporate sponsorship we get to spend it on upping the production values 
>(which would require having videographer for all the sessions as well as 
>an editor for post production)

>(And I do appreciate all Marshall has done, but there is only so much one
can 
>do by letting an unmanned camera run during a session.)

100% in agreement.  When I was at BoostCon10 a call for a volunteer to
persue corporate sponsorship was launched an no one responded.  I was
interested and decided to commit an effort to it as I felt that there were
unexploited opportunities in this area.  I didn't publicly accept such
a commitment because I wasn't sure I could succeed at it and I didn't
want to be on the hook to deliver something I wasn't sure I could deliver.

There are two sources of my inspiration:
a) Marshall's videos and the response to them on the list.
b) YOUR presentation at BoostCon10 on "Type Erasure" (how ironic!)

I felt this was the direction that Boost's outreach should evolve.  
This would require money to invest in better production 
and promotion and an obvious source would be coporate sponsorships.

Sooooooo I spent quite a bit of time working on getting corporate
sponsorships.
I talked to all the larger corporations with an interest in C++.  I 
talked to other open source projects which had corporate sponsorships
about how to find the right contacts. I bugged boost attendees who
worked in these corporations to connect me with the right department
to make the pitch.  I made and sent sponsorship proposals to all the
contacts I had been able to develop.  My intention was to raise enough
commitment to present proposal to the you guys which would use the money
to take Marshall's idea to it's logical conclusion - creating a set
of video tutorials to help spread Boost and C++ to a wider audience.

After some time on this effort - six weeks on and off - I concluded
that being successful I would have to devote even more time/resources
to the task and even then with no guarentee of success. So I dropped
the effort. Oh well.

[off topic]
I should say the experience was interesting to me in unexpected ways.
I really didn't realize how much C++ had shrunk as a percentage
of the whole "programming" space.  I had always dismissed thinks
like Java, C#, Visual Basic, Adobe Flex and other tools as
being companies pet projects with no real appeal over C++.  But 
now I see that they are seen great productivity enhancers
for making for what I call "crappy applications".  I'm refering
to applications which can be cobbled together (at least as 
a working prototype) in minimal time. Quality isn't a big
deal because "we'll just issue and update every month". 
No point in investing a large amount of time since in six
months we'll be making a new one anyway. etc....  Making
such applications is a huge market.  Of course this bugs
the hell out of me - "crappy" IS a perjoritive term.  But
the truth is that there is a huge class of applications
for which time to deployment is the ONLY consideration.
And C++ doesn't compete well in this arena.  (It could
do a lot better - which also motivates me).

I was very surprised that the corporations I contacted
failed to jump on this immediately.  Several have a large
stake in C++ (IBM, Apple, Sun, Intel, MS - less so - but still)
and the cost was peanuts to them in comparison to other
efforts they invest in (Eclipse, Clang, Java, Parallel Suite,
Visual Studio).  I still can't shake the feeling that I gave
up too soon on this.  But as a volunteer, there is only
so much frustration and tedium one can stand.
[/off topic]

Of course I'm still looking for a way to see accomplished what
I think needs to be done. Hence my proposal.

>instead of buying drinks or shirts for attendees. 

This costs nothing compared to the video production that 
I think is necessary. 

>The reason I say corporate sponsorship is because I don't believe 
>attendees should bear this cost, since we aren't the ones directly 
>benefiting.

Well, anyone can have an opinion about who "should" bear this or that
cost.  And I have my own opinions on this and other aspects of
Boost/C++ libraries.  But I don't focus on them as no one ever
when along with any of my ideas because of my personal opinion
about who should do what.

>I still believe those videos should be freely available 
>to the community at large.  

>If we wanted to charge for, say, 
>a set of BoostCon DVDs, I'd be fine with that as long as the same 
>quality presentations are still viewable for free.

hmm - do you think that someone should be prevented from making
such a video if he didn't plan to distribute for free? Even
if the net effect was to spread the gospel on Advanced C++/Boost? 

Anyway, this thread has convinced me that my proposal to leverage (hijaak?)
on BoostCon third track to produce material for such outreach
videos is not a great idea.  Still it has been pretty
fruitful (for me at least).

Robert Ramey