151–160 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just the thing meetups needed, corporate ads.
The alternative may well be that the meetup in question simply ceases to exist. Which is better? No meetup at all, or a meetup with sponsors?
It's in the hands of our corporate overlords to decide what we can do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative may well be that the meetup in question simply ceases to exist. Which is better? No meetup at all, or a meetup with sponsors?
Yes, that's exactly my problem with it. It's in the hands of our corporate overlords to decide what we can do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's exactly my problem with it. It's in the hands of our corporate overlords to decide what we can do.
You're certainly welcome to pay for it yourself if you feel that strongly.
Asking people to pay for entry means that in most cases the meetup won't happen at all.
If meetups don't happen we all have to lose from it, not just the meetup organizers.
Isn't it a worthy goal for a society to facilitate the free exchange of ideas?
Why should corporations or a patron be in charge of deciding whether that can be done or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're certainly welcome to pay for it yourself if you feel that strongly.
It doesn't work that way, as made clear on this thread it's hard enough to get meetups going when they're free. Asking people to pay for entry means that in most cases the meetup won't happen at all. If meetups don't happen we all have to lose from it, not just the meetup organizers. Isn't it a worthy goal for a society to facilitate the free exchange of ideas? Why should corporations or a patron be in charge of deci…
The organizer should pay if they don't want to get sponsor(s). As you say, expecting participants to pay is generally too high a hurdle. If they don't want to/can't have sponsors or foot the bill, then, yes, there just shouldn't be a meetup probably unless they can randomly beg space from somewhere. Dropping the bill on an amorphous "society" isn't really a solution. I have no problem with a town/city library offering space if it's available but there are many competing demands including lots of talks and activities that have no hope of attracting a corporate sponsor. There's no more reason for my town to support a Kubernetes meetup than a talk on medieval castles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the one near my place. I suspect you can find a similar one nearby: http://sdh-takaido.sakura.ne.jp/kumin.html (It was a bit more expensive than I remembered, but still extremely reasonable)
Thanks for the link! It's very reasonable, unfortunately a bit limited in terms of time (usual the programming meetups I organized went up until almost midnight). Still good to know that these kind of options exist.
I was on the board of directors for a local Linux Users Group and can echo the difficulties in finding a venue. In a city full of empty office spaces on a weekday night it was virtually impossible to find a stable meeting location. Without a stable meeting location you are much less likely to establish a core group since people do not like to have to learn how to get to different venues. Mozilla hosted us at one poin…
With GPS its not so much the location but thr change in time commitment. The new location is never 5 min from the preious but 30-45 min difference. People in these groups often have busy lives so if your 3hrs suddenly becomes 4hrs its simply less of a headache to cut the unnecessary thing rather than change 50 other things in your schedule. Eventually this scheduking effect shakes off all thr people in the group with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't work that way, as made clear on this thread it's hard enough to get meetups going when they're free. Asking people to pay for entry means that in most cases the meetup won't happen at all. If meetups don't happen we all have to lose from it, not just the meetup organizers. Isn't it a worthy goal for a society to facilitate the free exchange of ideas? Why should corporations or a patron be in charge of deci…
Read what I wrote. The organizer should pay if they don't want to get sponsor(s). As you say, expecting participants to pay is generally too high a hurdle. If they don't want to/can't have sponsors or foot the bill, then, yes, there just shouldn't be a meetup probably unless they can randomly beg space from somewhere. Dropping the bill on an amorphous "society" isn't really a solution. I have no problem with a town/c…
Why? Society (through the state) should invest in anything that can improve society overall. All the major progress mankind has achieved is based on collective investments.
And what do you mean by amorphous? It's pretty clear what society is: it's us, it's the aggregate of the people living in a community.
> but there are many competing demands including lots of talks and activities that have no hope of attracting a corporate sponsor
Which is exactly why I argue that we shouldn't leave to private sponsors such as corps to decide whether a meetup can happen.
There should be a space for whatever talks/events/meetups that don't fit with any private sponsor interests, e.g. stuff that has no direct commercial usage.
> There's no more reason for my town to support a Kubernetes meetup than a talk on medieval castles.
Yes, I think towns should support both. I'm certainly not limiting to tech meetups the kind of events to take place in such a public space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read what I wrote. The organizer should pay if they don't want to get sponsor(s). As you say, expecting participants to pay is generally too high a hurdle. If they don't want to/can't have sponsors or foot the bill, then, yes, there just shouldn't be a meetup probably unless they can randomly beg space from somewhere. Dropping the bill on an amorphous "society" isn't really a solution. I have no problem with a town/c…
> Dropping the bill on an amorphous "society" isn't really a solution. Why? Society (through the state) should invest in anything that can improve society overall. All the major progress mankind has achieved is based on collective investments. And what do you mean by amorphous? It's pretty clear what society is: it's us, it's the aggregate of the people living in a community. > but there are many competing demands in…
If you're really averse to corporate sponsorship and really want to have some specific meetup, paying for it personally seems a pretty reasonable option. No one is asking you to build a bridge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dropping the bill on an amorphous "society" isn't really a solution. Why? Society (through the state) should invest in anything that can improve society overall. All the major progress mankind has achieved is based on collective investments. And what do you mean by amorphous? It's pretty clear what society is: it's us, it's the aggregate of the people living in a community. > but there are many competing demands in…
My town has very limited financial resources. You're welcome to compete with all the other demands for one-off library space with all the other uses. Not that a tech meetup would have much demand where I live. We won't agree but a tech meetup seems like exactly the sort of thing private sponsors (whether personal, corporate, or academic) should mostly cover. If you're really averse to corporate sponsorship and really…
Small town = less demand for public spaces. And I propose the money to pay for this comes from the state if needed.
> You're welcome to compete with all the other demands for one-off library space with all the other uses.
Uh ok? I will, better to have a space for free every couple months than to have to give up my meetup. I don't see how an additional space for meetings should worsen things?
> If you're really averse to corporate sponsorship and really want to have some specific meetup, paying for it personally seems a pretty reasonable option.
This is clearly not about myself, it's about investing socially in enabling an exchange of ideas, even when no private patron sees fit to sponsor it.
You must be one of those "don't tread on me" types. You've been clutching at straws for a few comments while failing to find any argument. I believe the reality is that you don't like "your" tax money to benefit others, but saying that would make you look bad wouldn't it?
I propose your tax money pays for it, together with mine.