[Bitcoin-development] bitcoin.org - remove hackathon

[Amir Taaki]

OK, pull request seems good.

FYI we lost money on last year's conference, and are hoping to break even this year. The only people to make profit will be nefario and anyone else we give a share in it (people who help realise it). Otherwise money made goes towards next year's conference and paying for things to make a better conference (like Gavin wanted to attend but couldn't afford a ticket). It is not a commercial event, and I've been pushing to keep the sponsorship and community parts highly separated. Like I really do not wish to sell a speaker slot, but if I have to (to pay the bills) then it will be obvious due to scheduling and disclaimers that speakers are sponsors.



----- Original Message -----
From: Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at exmulti.com>; Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoin.org - remove hackathon

On Monday, July 16, 2012 11:47:02 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Vladimir does raise a fair point, though.  Hackathon seems appropriate
> for bitcoin.org as it is focused on dev-related activities.  (full
> disclosure: speaking at bitcoin2012.com)  The conference might or
> might not be.  The conference does seem community focused, so I don't
> object to it being on bitcoin.org...  But if consensus prefers
> otherwise, that's OK too.

IMO, bitcoin.org is more community-focussed anyway.
How often do devs use the site, compared to GitHub etc?

Someone else made a pullreq for Bitcoin Magazine; I suggest(ed) that
for-profit organizations should be asked to pitch in some way or another.
Who should organize that, I don't know. If Bitcoin Consultancy/Amir is behind 
the conference, I suggest their/his development contributions should be 
sufficient in that respect.

> PS.  This seems like material for pull requests, which is preferred
> over mailing list email + git push.  When working on the satoshi
> client, we all ACK each other's pull req for anything beyond the
> trivial.

I concur, this should be discussed in a pullreq.