DConf 2019: Shepherd's Pie Edition

[Joakim]

On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 at 11:27:29 UTC, Nicholas Wilson 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 at 05:01:43 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 22:22:08 UTC, Steven 
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>> The 0.1% of the community that attend seem to like it, the 
>> vast majority don't, or at least don't care.
>
> You think we have 200k users? More to the point you neglect the 
> benefit of development and progress is shared by all users.
>
>>>> I, for one, will not be donating to the foundation as long 
>>>> as they continue to waste money this way, just as others 
>>>> have said they won't donate as long as it doesn't put out a 
>>>> Vision document anymore or otherwise communicate what it's 
>>>> doing with their money.
>
> I agree this does need to happen, the foundation will be having 
> a another meeting in Feb to set the vision, which I hope will 
> be a little more planned and productive than the last one.
>
>>> Nobody is asking for your money for this conference (unless 
>>> you want to attend), and if you feel this way, that's totally 
>>> your choice.
>>
>> I'm not talking about the registration fee, I'm talking about 
>> contributing anything to the foundation, which Walter 
>> indicates above covers some of the expenses for DConf.
>
> Some additional transparency would help, Mike?
>
>>>I like the results that come from the conferences, I've
>>> been to all of them since 2013, on my dime for 3, and with 
>>> assistance for 3. I felt it was 100% worth it for all.
>>
>> Yet you cannot give a single reason _why_ you felt it was 
>> worth it, or why my suggestions wouldn't make it better.
>
> I'll give my reasons:
> I got a job out of it.
> I got useful insight into various bits of the compiler.
> I got connections for collaboration with stuff that I'm 
> interested.
>
>> If you're making a bad decision, it _should_ be questioned.
>
> Indeed, but none of us think DConf is a bad idea or that the 
> format doesn't work for us.
>
>> Almost nothing that has been decided so far would stop most of 
>> my three suggestions from still being implemented.
>
> You haven't managed to convince us that that would be an 
> improvement.
>
>> As for how they feel about it, I don't care. The reason most 
>> projects and companies fail is because the decision-making 
>> process stops being about putting out a good product but about 
>> "feelings" and various people "saving face," especially when 
>> higher up the hierarchy, ie politics. And don't make up some 
>> nonsense that I'm saying that it's okay if everybody starts 
>> cursing each other out like Linus did: we're talking about 
>> _questioning a decision_. That is the whole point of having a 
>> community.
>>
>> The day this community starts being more about saving face is 
>> the day I leave it, as that's the beginning of the end, and I 
>> don't want to be around for that end.
>
> I totally agree, but again, you haven't convinced us that it is 
> an improvement.
>
>> Not at all, the whole reason I'm willing to debate is that 
>> other worthwhile perspectives may be out there. I think the 
>> evidence and arguments strongly favor the suggestions I'm 
>> putting forward, but I'm perfectly willing to consider other 
>> arguments.
>>
>> That is the same stance they should have, but don't appear to. 
>> My problem with this "debate" is that nobody was able to 
>> defend the current DConf format at all.
>
> That reasoning is backwards: in our experience DConf, as done 
> in the past, works, and it works well. The onus is on you to 
> convince us that it would work better the way you describe.

Simply repeating over and over again that you're not "convinced" 
is not an argument, nor do your own personal reasons above argue 
for one format over another.

I asked for a rationale above and got none from Mike and a very 
weak, confused one from Walter. It's fairly obvious that there 
was never any real deliberation on the DConf format, and that you 
guys have dug in and decided to cut off your nose to spite your 
face. Fine with me, your loss.

>> Consider some of Walter's silly arguments above: at one point 
>> he says he wants "successful instantiations of your theories," 
>> implying that these are all things I'm just talking about and 
>> nobody's doing them, though it's not clear which aspects he 
>> thinks that of since I've presented evidence for much of it.
>>
>> But at another point, he says that other D meetups are already 
>> doing something I suggest (I pointed out that he's wrong about 
>> that one, but let's assume he believes it), so there's no 
>> reason for DConf to do it. First of all, 95+% of D meetups 
>> appear to follow the DConf format of having a single speaker 
>> lecture to a room, so why isn't that an argument against doing 
>> that yet again at DConf?
>
> What works at one scale doesn't necessarily work at another.

I see, so you're arguing that DConf shouldn't be doing in-person 
talks because it's larger than most D meetups? Don't answer that, 
scale as a reason makes no sense and there's no way you can make 
it.

> To do something very different from a "traditional" conference 
> would be a significant risk when what we have works well.

I see no "risk" whatsoever in change when the status quo is 
dying, and what you're already doing isn't having much impact.

> As noted previously your opinions would carry more weight if 
> you had actually attended a past DConf.

Heh, this is the dumbest possible argument anyone can put forth 
and you guys repeatedly make it: "I have no arguments so 'Magic! 
You had to be there!'"

Look, it's clear that these non-technical decisions, whether for 
DConf or other matters, are not a rational process, whether 
because of ignorance, incompetence, stubbornness, conservatism, 
whatever. Just the fact that you guys cannot even seem to _track_ 
my arguments makes that clear. I want nothing to do with DConf: 
just go on with that outdated nonsense and see where it gets you.