Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any longer.

I've updated the DConf site and published a blog post, but I ask that you please don't share this to reddit just yet. I want to wait until after Christmas to share it there. We're still ironing out some details (deadlines, prices, hotels) and I'll update the DConf site in the coming days with info as I get it.

Happy Holidays!

http://dconf.org/2019/index.html

https://dlang.org/blog/2018/12/22/dconf-2019-shepherds-pie-edition/

Brilliant, DConf comes to the UK, I can get to it…

except…

it's on at the exact same time as DevoxxUK 2019 which is at the Business Design Centre. :-(

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> Thanks to Symmetry Investments, DConf is heading to London! We're still ironing out the details, but I've been sitting on this for weeks and, now that we have a venue, I just can't keep quiet about it any longer.
>
> I've updated the DConf site and published a blog post, but I ask that you please don't share this to reddit just yet. I want to wait until after Christmas to share it there. We're still ironing out some details (deadlines, prices, hotels) and I'll update the DConf site in the coming days with info as I get it.
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> http://dconf.org/2019/index.html
>
> https://dlang.org/blog/2018/12/22/dconf-2019-shepherds-pie-edition/

Given that this conference format is dying off, is there any explanation for why the D team wants to continue this antiquated ritual?

https://marco.org/2018/01/17/end-of-conference-era
http://subfurther.com/blog/2018/01/15/the-final-conf-down/
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi@forum.dlang.org

It costs $3k to hire a pull request manager, something D desperately needed, yet here you are having the average conference participant spend that mostly on flights and hotels to go to London, only to stare silently at presentations most of the time, while surrounded by a room full of people. What are the possible priorities that this can be considered a good idea?

The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf format strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to build a used language, but a hobby project by two tech retirees, W&A, who just want to prototype some different ideas, show it off to a bunch of fellow hobbyists, and then have some beers and go sight-seeing.

If this is the core team's goal, please just stop stating otherwise and broadcast this on the front page of the website, as you're essentially doing by the way this blog post was written. Giant companies like google or Microsoft can afford these antiquated, giant wastes of time known as conferences and even they are cutting back. The fact that the D team is moving forward with this given how tech is moving is a horrible sign, suggesting it is completely out of touch and unable to prioritize well.

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

> The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf format strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to build a used language,

It's the same signal being emitted by all of these "failures" as well:

Go: https://twitter.com/dgryski/status/1034939523736600576
Rust: https://rustconf.com/
Clojure: https://clojure.org/community/events
Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Conferences
C++: https://cppcon.org/ https://cpponsea.uk/ http://cppnow.org/ https://meetingcpp.com/

etc.

To me it's obvious from that short list that took me less than 5min to come up with that conferences aren't a dying format. I gave up on C++ conferences after the 4th link, there are just too many.

If you don't like conferences you don't have to go. I for one am excited about being in London in May. Please don't sour it for other who think/feel like I do.

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 15:11:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 14:26:29 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>>> The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf format strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to build a used language,
>>
>> It's the same signal being emitted by all of these "failures" as well:
>>
>> Go: https://twitter.com/dgryski/status/1034939523736600576
>> Rust: https://rustconf.com/
>> Clojure: https://clojure.org/community/events
>> Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Conferences
>> C++: https://cppcon.org/ https://cpponsea.uk/ http://cppnow.org/ https://meetingcpp.com/
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> To me it's obvious from that short list that took me less than 5min to come up with that conferences aren't a dying format. I gave up on C++ conferences after the 4th link, there are just too many.
>
> The fact that a short list of conferences still exists at all somehow makes it "obvious" to you that they're not dying? Did you even look at my second link that actually tallies some numbers for a particular tech market?
>
> It is true that a few conferences are still being done, even my second link above never said they're _all_ gone. But simply saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an argument for continuing it, nor does it contradict anything I said about the number of conferences going down.
>
>> If you don't like conferences you don't have to go.
>
> This has nothing do me: I've never been to DConf or most any other tech conference and likely never will. This is about whether the D team should be wasting time with this dying format.
>
>> I for one am excited about being in London in May. Please don't sour it for other who think/feel like I do.
>
> Heh, so that's your two big arguments for why the conference format should continue: other languages are doing it and you want to visit London in May? You are exemplifying the mindset that I'm pointing out with these flimsy arguments, everything that is wrong with D and DConf.

We talked a great deal about this in your thread (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi@forum.dlang.org). I believe the main takeaway from that discussion was that many of us disagree with your opinion to at least some degree.

I know that you are very convinced about your idea of how we should do DConf being superior and that is OK. Maybe you are just ahead of time in this case, I don't know. But it is also  a fact that many people stated that they actually enjoy the current DConf format very much and believe it is not a waste of time and money at all. So to me, it is no surprise at all that it was decided to to stick with the current format.

Also I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this issue, I think it should be done in a separate thread.

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 15:11:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 14:26:29 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 13:46:39 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 12:18:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> The egregious waste of time and resources of this DConf format strongly signals that D is not a serious effort to build a used language,
>>>
>>> It's the same signal being emitted by all of these "failures" as well:
>>>
>>> Go: https://twitter.com/dgryski/status/1034939523736600576
>>> Rust: https://rustconf.com/
>>> Clojure: https://clojure.org/community/events
>>> Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Conferences
>>> C++: https://cppcon.org/ https://cpponsea.uk/ http://cppnow.org/ https://meetingcpp.com/
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> To me it's obvious from that short list that took me less than 5min to come up with that conferences aren't a dying format. I gave up on C++ conferences after the 4th link, there are just too many.
>>
>> The fact that a short list of conferences still exists at all somehow makes it "obvious" to you that they're not dying? Did you even look at my second link that actually tallies some numbers for a particular tech market?
>>
>> It is true that a few conferences are still being done, even my second link above never said they're _all_ gone. But simply saying some are still following this outdated ritual is not an argument for continuing it, nor does it contradict anything I said about the number of conferences going down.
>>
>>> If you don't like conferences you don't have to go.
>>
>> This has nothing do me: I've never been to DConf or most any other tech conference and likely never will. This is about whether the D team should be wasting time with this dying format.
>>
>>> I for one am excited about being in London in May. Please don't sour it for other who think/feel like I do.
>>
>> Heh, so that's your two big arguments for why the conference format should continue: other languages are doing it and you want to visit London in May? You are exemplifying the mindset that I'm pointing out with these flimsy arguments, everything that is wrong with D and DConf.
>
> We talked a great deal about this in your thread (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ogrdeyojqzosvjnthpsi@forum.dlang.org). I believe the main takeaway from that discussion was that many of us disagree with your opinion to at least some degree.

As I recall, you largely agreed with me:

"I totally agree with you on your first point, i.e. making DConf more interactive."

"I disagree with your second point, i.e. decentralising DConf... On the other hand, I have to admit that decentralising the event would open it up for a much bigger audience, which definitely is a good idea."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/omsxuayxkaqbxeoberzb@forum.dlang.org

> I know that you are very convinced about your idea of how we should do DConf being superior and that is OK. Maybe you are just ahead of time in this case, I don't know. But it is also  a fact that many people stated that they actually enjoy the current DConf format very much and believe it is not a waste of time and money at all. So to me, it is no surprise at all that it was decided to to stick with the current format.

I really don't care how many people agree or disagree. All I care about is the reasoning presented. As I see it, I gave lots of good reasons, and like Atila here, they gave none: only "I enjoyed myself." That's not a worthwhile reason, if the goal is to further the D language and community.

> Also I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this issue, I think it should be done in a separate thread.

I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm asking the D team who're making this decision why it's being made, despite all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating that it's a bad move. I suspect they're not thinking this through, but they can speak for themselves.

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:

> I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm asking the D team who're making this decision why it's being made, despite all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating that it's a bad move. I suspect they're not thinking this through, but they can speak for themselves.

The decision was made because your reasoning failed to convince anyone involved in the planning that maintaining the current format of DConf is a mistake. Nor do they agree with you that it's a bad move. We like the current format and see no need to change it at this time.

If you would like to carry on another debate about this, please open another thread in thhe General forum. This one isn't the place for it. Thanks!

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>> Also I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this issue, I think it should be done in a separate thread.
>
> I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm asking the D team [...]

Then why post in the announce thread? If you don’t feel your previous thread got your message through, you know how to reach the foundation.

I don’t understand how you can argue against technical conferences so much if you never attended one, much less DConf. I know the odds are slim, but I hope to meet you there someday.

Bastiaan.

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 17:36:08 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:35:27 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>>> Also I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. If you feel that we indeed need to rediscuss this issue, I think it should be done in a separate thread.
>>
>> I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm asking the D team [...]
>
> Then why post in the announce thread? If you don’t feel your previous thread got your message through, you know how to reach the foundation.

Why wouldn't I post in here? There's currently a 84-post thread in this Announce forum discussing Atila's blog post about what D got wrong.

Similarly, this is the thread where the topic is the next DConf. I almost never send private emails over community matters, which should be discussed publicly.

> I don’t understand how you can argue against technical conferences so much if you never attended one, much less DConf.

I didn't say I never attended one, I probably sat through something back in my college days. I watch some conf videos now and then, but like most techies these days, don't find any value in going.

> I know the odds are slim, but I hope to meet you there someday.

I'd like to meet you too, but I think if it happens, it won't ever be at an outdated format like the current DConf. :P

On Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 16:57:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> As I recall, you largely agreed with me:

That is true, and I still do regarding many points (though not all). But this is not the point I wanted to make. I don't consider my opinion that important. I simply wanted to point out why the D team probably decided against your suggestion.

> I'm not trying to discuss it with you or the community. I'm asking the D team who're making this decision why it's being made, despite all the reasoning in that thread, and reiterating that it's a bad move. I suspect they're not thinking this through, but they can speak for themselves.

I do understand your wish for them to explain the reasons for their decision. And in my opinion the reasoning so far has indeed been a bit poor ("your arguments were not convincing"). Maybe The D team can give some more details about why they value the traditional conference format more than your suggestion.

By the way, if you are still interested in implementing your suggested conference format (I'm getting the feeling that you are getting a bit frustrated :(), it might be more promising to not replace DConf with it, but instead make it an additional event (maybe in autumn). If you are interested in discussing more ideas about this, I'd gladly participate.