[EuroPython] conference length

[Martijn Faassen]

Hey,

On 04/17/2014 04:40 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> At the end of the day, more talks for more days seems like a better
> overall solution, and people are welcome to consider it a 3-days
> conference if they feel so. Consider that the submissions far exceed
> even the current schedule, so it’s not like “anything gets in”.

With this argument a 3 week conference would be automatically better 
than 1 week conference given enough submissions, but nobody is 
suggesting that. There are other factors that tie into this, such as 
people's attention span, costs for attendees, cost of organization, etc.

> Notice also that we got lots of positive feedback for the 1-week
> formula; the hallway track is far better because you have more time
> to meet people, talk to them, remeet them a second time, schedule a
> meetup, go out for a dinner or a beer. In a 2-and-a-half conference,
> it’s much harder, especially at the size of EuroPython.

That argument works a lot better. The question is whether this is really 
true for most people; a survey might help.

> I would also account for the fact that almost 900 people joined
> EuroPython in Florence last year, with more than a 2x boost in 3
> years, and the general feedback has been overwhelming positive.

It's possible that the longer conference accounted for the increase in 
attendance, but PyCon is not a whole week and even bigger, so I don't 
think it's safe to conclude this. It might be the conference grew due to 
other factors, including factors not directly to do with aspects of its 
organization such as the popularity of the Python language.

> As for the trainings: [snip]

I buy the arguments surrounding trainings. It then depends on the 
priorities of the conference on how important trainings are supposed to 
be in the overall picture. If EuroPython's goal is to attract people who 
are relatively new to Python and its community (sounds like a good 
goal), trainings like the way you do them seem like a good idea.

> So, while I’m personally always open to experimenting new formats
 > and playing with new ideas, I would say that we have an overwhelming
 > majority of positive feedbacks on the new structure, and it
 > incidentally works much better cost-wise.

Is this feedback data available somewhere? Or is this more anecdotal?

I have a minor issue with the way my suggestion is presented as 
experimenting with new formats. There is the implication that I'm 
suggesting something rather new and experimental. That's untrue; 
elsewhere I've given a historical overview of how EuroPython worked on 
its 3 day program for years before the shift to a 5 day program in 
recent years, and how it got to be this way step by step. I'll also note 
that a 3 day format for the conference proper is closer to the format of 
PyCon US.

I understand the cost argument and I understand the training in parallel 
argument both from an attendee and cost perspective. It's clear to me 
that the audience for EuroPython has been shifting, probably creating a 
heavier emphasis on trainings as a result, and that this necessitates 
change too. I will have to give it all a try.

But I think the only way to know whether this format is ideal is to get 
data from the audience that EuroPython is interested in attracting. Who 
knows, perhaps it turns out 3 weeks *is* the ideal conference length. :)

Regards,

Martijn