I've further commented on the "Open Conference Expectations" adding my thoughts about a "Priority of Constituencies".
-
In reply to:
@susie_c *What* and *the fuck?!*
In reply to:@deadprogram Ask @eliduke.
RT @jason_Curran: If you don't follow me, DO NOT retweet me
I chimed in on this "Open Conference Expectations" thing.
https://gist.github.com/3098860#gistcomment-371793
In reply to:@blowmage So many of these comments are really blog posts. :/
In reply to:@blowmage I've got a lot to say about this. I just want to finish reading it all before I chime in.
Still. Reading.
In reply to:@blowmage Will do. It's weird coming into this thing even just a day late.
In reply to:@jessicaspacekat ow ow!
This OCE thing is the most comments that I've ever actually read through. Still reading before I comment too.
https://gist.github.com/3098860
RE: OCE –
I think it's most important for organizers to communicate to their speakers what the terms are. Don't like them? Don't speak.
In reply to:@16toads @adactio I use "conflict" as HTML5 WG uses it.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies
RT @Dolly_Parton: The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.
@gruber iTunes uses ⌘F to make a video fullscreen.
RE: "OCE" –
In case of conflict, consider attendees over speakers over sponsors over organizers over theoretical purity.