| |
In lugnet.events.brickswest, Scott Costello wrote:
> Here is my senile recollection of those historical events. Many of us batted
> around the idea of having a west coast brickfest type convention. While in
> infancy our East coast counter parts voiced loud opposition to everything from
> our desire to have an event, down to the name. Just as it started getting ugly,
> Matt stepped up and spear headed the event we had as BricksWest. I have to give
> Matt credit for organizing and planning two major events. However Matt has now
> fallen off the face of the Earth, and is willfully ignoring requests for reply.
> My concern has been from the beginning that this whole event was in the hands on
> one person, not a true committee. Now my fears have been realized as, barring
> some sort of miraculous Matt resurrection, Brickswest as an event is over.
I've got the same fear.
> Now comes decision time, do we fail to learn from our mistakes and let one
> person spearhead a new event. The last two events were embarrassingly short of
> LUG cooperation, and high on critics. Since we are going to have to restart this
> thing, basically from scratch, let’s do it right this time.
This statement could well be the single most important item in this entire
thread.
> If we begin to setup
> “mini-cons” we risk insignificance by dilution. I fear without cooperation the
> proposed Portland con would be little more than a local lug meeting.
Very true. Even though GenCon showed us that if you make an event large enough
and command enough media attention, you can have it anywhere, I don't feel
that's the way we need to look at the national brick conventions (BF, BFPDX, BW,
NWBC, etc). There NEEDS to be more cohesion between the national organizers and
the individual LUGs and LTCs or all will eventually fall apart. I have no doubt
that a BricksWest 2004 event would and could have blown all others away had Matt
Gerber spoken up and said he needed assistance from local groups to get this
done right.
Unfortunately, this did not happen.
>
> I propose a true committee with representation from all the involved LUGs. Dave
> has the right to speak for LUGOLA, Adrian would probably represent his
> forthcoming San Diego LUG. If we could have a representative from Baylug,
> Sealug. and any interested LTC’s join in we could begin on the road to
> organization.
Well Scott, I'll speak for LUGOLA only if the group wants me to and not before I
speak to the group at length. I tend to favor the idea of a meeting of the
minds, but without knowing what groups wish to participate I won't push this
idea. I do believe that all of So Cal's groups need to be represented and I'd
highly recommend all of the state's groups have a representative present. No
other state has as many Lego groups as California and it's time we did something
with the resources we've got available.
> This is not the time for posturing or chest beating, we are way too close to
> 2004 to waste time uselessly arguing. Let us all agree that any convention
> without LUG participation will fail.
No doubt about that.
> > Already working on it. I hate that these naming issues have gone to the lawyers,
> > but that's the way these things go, I guess.
>
> I too hate the litigious nature of some here, but the name is by far the least
> important of the decisions that need to be made.
>
> Scott Costello
True, Scott, very true. I'll let the name drop for now.
-Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
