Subject:
|
Western LUG Convention
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.events
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:07:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
676 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Gerber (in http://news.lugnet.com/events/?n=267) suggested
calling it "BricksWest" and I think that's a great idea. It should be
different enough from "Brickfest(sm)" to avoid offending the owners of
that service mark, yet similar enough for it to be clear what it is to
the majority of AFOL's.
I am concerned, however, about the tone that Kevin Loch used in his
recent message (http://news.lugnet.com/events/?n=409) about the
service mark. I sympathize fully with his desire to protect the name,
but I wish that everyone would see that there is no threat to the
existing Brickfest. Nobody is trying to destroy the identity of
Brickfest.
For example, I don't think the idea of hosting a separate competing
fest at the same time as Brickfest is under consideration at all. The
simultaneous option was intended, as I understand it, as a way for
people who are unable to travel to DC to participate in Brickfest
remotely, not a way to draw people away from the "real" Brickfest. I
don't think that would work, however. Even with that intent, it will
still have the effect that some people who might have gone to DC would
stay back because the local Brickfest is easier for them to attend.
What I would support is a "Western North America" convention, to be
hosted in a different city in the western part of the US or Canada
each year by that city's local LUG or LTC. Seattle and LA seem to be
the prime contenders, but I'm sure there are plenty of other options
as well. The location of the next year's event can be decided at a
special session at the previous year's event, like is done for some of
the science fiction conventions that are held in different cities each
year.
I would also suggest that spring or fall would be the best time to
host such an event. The exact dates might vary somewhat from year to
year, depending on the expected weather at the location. But it would
be best to stick to a particular part of the year. Having it in the
winter would be a problem for the more northerly cities, and in the
summer for the southerly.
Having it in a different city each year would ensure that everyone
gets their chance to have it be nearby. Having it cover the western
states & provinces would make it big enough to draw a large group, yet
keep the travel distances short enough that it is not unreasonable for
people to be able to make it from anywhere in that region--you can
drive from Edmonton to LA in under 2 days, for example.
Of course, it's open to people from anywhere, but the focus would be
on the western US and Canada (do we have any Mexican LUGNETters?).
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Western LUG Convention
|
| (...) People may not be intentionally trying to destroy the name, but using it generically DOES disassociate the name with the event. Just as calling any soda a "Coke" or Megabloks "Legos" or a Canon copier a "Xerox Machine" disassociates the name (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.events)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
