[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

DebConf in Montreal in 2016

Hi everyone,

I figure it's been long enough now since DebConf14; and way past due for
sending this email.

I was at DebConf14, and the subject of presenting a bid for Montreal for
DebConf16 has popped up. As such, I've already been talking to quite a
few people in an effort to gauge interest, build a team, and figure out
options for venues, and just who we'd need to talk to in the near future
for this.

So here it is: this isn't a one-man job. DebConf is a large conference
that takes a lot of time to organize, and to have it in Montreal, we'd
also need to present a formal bid by December 1st, 2014. This isn't that
far off.

This email is a request for help. If you're interested in helping out
organizing DebConf16 and/or preparing the bid; please add your name to
the wiki [1], we can all schedule a meeting very soon to hammer out the
details. There is a ton of things[2] to look into, so if you can, please
also write down what you'd be interested in helping out with. It doesn't
have to be the bid (though we'll need people for that!), it can also be
to be part of the various other teams *during* DebConf: video team, the
registration desk, etc.

So far, it looks like one viable option would be to have DebConf at
UQAM, and while nothing's set in stone, I've been talking to people
there to see how it can be arranged. It's obviously good if we could
have at least one other option as well, in case things don't work out.

Unless people think it would be too much volume to discuss organization
details on this list, I think don't need to request a new list be
created for that purpose.

[1] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16/Bids/Montreal
[2] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16

Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <mathieu.tl@gmail.com>
Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu.tl@gmail.com
4096R/DC95CA5A 36E2 CF22 B077 FEFE 725C  80D3 C7DA A946 DC95 CA5A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: