Miniconfs can be run in several ways:
- Like a standard conference with Speakers and talk slots
- As an unconference
- A project day (eg Open Hardware)
- A big tutorial day
Miniconfs started early in the life of Linux.Conf.Au, originally with the Debian Miniconfs:
-
Debian Miniconf at LCA2002 (Brisbane)
-
Debian Miniconf at LCA2003 (Perth)
-
Debian Miniconf 3 at LCA2004 (Adelaide)
Over time the Miniconfs grew in popularity, and more were added:
-
At LCA2003 there were 4 Miniconfs (Debian for 2 days, Education for 2 days, IPv6 and Linux for 1 day each)
and from around LCA2008 onwards there were regularly 10-12 Miniconfs at Linux.Conf.Au and there was a "Miniconf CFP" run at the same time as the main conference Speaker CFP and a Miniconf selection process to determine which Miniconfs could be "part of Linux.Conf.Au". (Around this time there were also some other independent groups that also met "the weekend before/after Linux.Conf.Au", organising their own locations because it was recognised that Linux.Conf.Au really did start on Monday now.)
Originally the Miniconfs were seperately organised small one-day conferences that happened to run the day before Linux.Conf.Au (or later, the two days before Linux.Conf.Au) at the same/nearby venue, and aimed at "people who were in town to attend Linux.Conf.Au). There was no integration with the main Linux.Conf.Au site, other than a link to the Miniconf website, and Miniconfs did their own CFPs, published their own schedules, etc.
Originally Linux.Conf.Au provided nothing to the Miniconfs other than "here's a room at the conference University you can use", and Miniconfs were independent and could organise everything else themselves. They were something that happened before Linux.Conf.Au.
By about LCA2007 Miniconf programmes were integrated into the Main Linux.Conf.Au 2007 programme, and the Miniconfs were recognised as "part of" Linux.Conf.Au, not something "before" Linux.Conf.Au.
LCA2007 is also when the main Linux.Conf.Au team started scheduling main Linux.Conf.Au events on "the Miniconf Days" (Monday/Tuesday), such as the conference opening and main conference keynotes. This did not happen on LCA2008 (Melbourne) or LCA2009 (Hobart), but did start happening regularly fromL LCA2010 (Wellington). So from LCA2010 (about a decade ago), the Miniconf Monday/Tuesday were firmly part of Linux.Conf.Au rather than before Linux.Conf.Au.
Miniconfs have never received any regular funding from the main Linux.Conf.Au conference budget, although it has usually been implicitly or explicitly required that Miniconf attendees had a Linux.Conf.Au conference ticket (with the Miniconfs "included in the ticket").
For about the last 10-15 years, the primary organiser of a Linux.Conf.Au Miniconf has received the equivalent of a "Linux.Conf.Au main conference Speaker" ticket, as an acknowledgement of the effort that goes into organising the Miniconf. Other Miniconf co-organisers have been required to buy a regular Linux.Conf.Au ticket (although in the last couple of years Miniconf co-organisers have received the equivalent of an "extended early bird" ticket -- ie they can buy an early bird priced ticket up to much closer to the conference than other attendees).
In the LCA2004 to LCA2009 sort of time frame, some Miniconfs located their own sponsors, sometimes fairly significant amounts of sponsorship. Since about LCA2010 Miniconfs have been explicitly prohibited from finding/having their own sponsorship / funding, due to concerns about Miniconf sponsors prominence competing with the prominence of the main Linux.Conf.Au sponsors.
Some years special "Miniconf Day Only" tickets have been available,
either to the general public (for a notional amount, approx $100)
or just to Miniconf Speakers (typically "by request" at no cost). Some
early years these were available directly, but since about LCA2010 when
available these have only been available as a special Linux.Conf.Au
ticket type.
Since about LCA2010 Miniconfs have operated with effectively zero budget.
Other than a few speakers on some years with Miniconf Day Only tickets, speakers at Miniconfs have been expected to buy their own ticket to Linux.Conf.Au, at their own or their employers cost, in order to be permitted to speak at the Miniconf.
Up to about LCA2016 (Geelong) Miniconf CFPs were always run separately, either from the Miniconf website or via email.
Around the switch to the new Linux.Conf.Au registration/conference system for LCA2017 (Hobart), Miniconfs were requested to run their Call for Presentations through the Linux.Conf.Au site, effectively as a "second speaker CFP" round. This happened for LCA2018 (Sydney), LCA2019 (Christchurch) and LCA2020 (Gold Coast).
This change to integrated CFP, integrated program, etc, made the Miniconfs seem even more "part of the Linux.Conf.Au conference" to external users such as potential speakers. At least in LCA2019 and LCA2020 the Miniconf CFP forms -- on the Linux.Conf.Au provided site -- explicitly asked potential Miniconf speakers if they needed financial assistance to attend / speak, just as was asked in the main Linux.Conf.Au CFP.
Unfortunately this increased apparent integration has not been reflected in actual increased integration of Miniconfs into the Linux.Conf.Au budget. So other than years that have had a general diversity fund available (eg, LCA2015 in Auckland, LCA2017 in Hobart) that any attendee could apply to, there has been no funding available to Miniconf Speakers from Linux.Conf.Au's budget, and Miniconf Organisers have been explicitly prohibited from finding their own funding to assist potential speakers.
No one should be made to work for free, presenting a talk is work.
Paying speakers is the ideal means of compensating them, realistically this is impossible for a community conference, as such to compensate the speakers for their time and work they are supported (amongst other ways) with free conference attendance.
Main conference speakers are given a speaker tier ticket, which is essentially a slightly better Professional ticket, around $1000 value.
Miniconf speakers are required to pay to present, making them work without any compensation.
In theory this impacts every miniconf speaker past and present for as long as miniconfs have existed. Those who are impacted in a way that results in them not being able to participate the scope of this impact is impossible to determine in any accurate way.
In the past miniconf organisers have bought tickets for their speakers who couldn't otherwise attend.
Main conference organisers in the past have also waived tickets for miniconf speakers or created extremely discounted miniconf-only tickets creating more work for main conference.
LCA has a large number of support features to enable better attendance, these all have deadlines to make use of them. Miniconfs are organised after many of the support deadlines for the main conference have passed.
The early bird tickets long expire before miniconf speakers are informed of their acceptance. Likewise for the travel support.
Impossible to say for sure, based on some discussions on the miniconf mailing list the travel funding has impacted miniconf speakers from submitting talks in the past.
Miniconfs are separately organised but the organisers have no capability to issue tickets, connect with sponsors, or modify venue based on requirements. All of this needs to be done through the main conference organisers.
The inverse of this is also true, there is a workload put on the main conference organisers to solve the issues of tickets, handle venue requirements, close off sponsorship deals, or any other needs of the miniconf.
All miniconfs are impacted by this, as are all main conference organisers. Sponsors are also impacted, either by having more sponsor competition or by not being able to sponsor the element of LCA they care about. Venue is impacted, if miniconfs are allowed to organise or modify venue requirements this needs to be handled.
- Around KubeCon NA 2019
- Cloud Native Rejekts offers attendees a weekend of ‘unaccepted’ talks leading into KubeCon. It provides a stage for some of the 85% of talks rejected by KubeCon. Runs on Sat 16th & Sun 17th. Seperate Registration, Website and Organisers
- Day Zero co-locationed events at Kubecon. Around 30 co-located conferences running on Monday 18. Main conf on Tues 20th - Thurs 21st. Registered as part of Main Conf, Additional Cost.
- Alt-conferences (smaller in scope conferences that run alongside and nearby a larger conference). Most started in protest of ticket prices around large commercial conferences but have become a recognised part of the conference culture.
- Lost Levels - A lightning-talk style conference running alongside the Game Developers Conference.
- AltConf - a more traditional conference format, running alongside Apple's WWDC.
The easiest solution is to stop the miniconfs and run LCA as a three day conference.
- Venue savings
- Catering savings
- Simplify workload on organising team
- Eradicate those loud miniconf organisers
- No miniconfs
- Conference ticket perceived value
- Conference sponsorship perceived value
- Venue requirements
OSCON in 2015 dropped their fifth day which was normally the community focussed day. Unsure as to the exact impact on the event as we don't have access to the data, anecdotal reports has the community angry with it, but the conference still runs.
- The pereceived value of the conference for both tickets and sponsorship drops
- Venue requirements most likely simplified
- Costs for those two days eliminated
- Probably extremely angry community
This is both the easiest and most extreme option all at once and amounts to essentially a complete overhaul to how LCA is run.
It simplifies the workload on the organisers, reduces venue and catering costs and would likely simplify hiring a venue as three days is easier than five. This does change the conference from five to three days and will likely also result in the ticket and sponsorship being seen as less valuable than they currently are.
The repurcussions of this option are impossible to predict without attempting them.
A less extreme version of the above, essentially encourage miniconfs to run before the main conference but with zero official integration with LCA main. Main difference between this and the above is that miniconfs would be mentioned and encouraged by LCA but with the caveat of "we are not running them". This would very likely happen anyway even if the above option was taken.
- Reduced venue costs
- Reduced catering costs
- Reduced main organiser workload
- Simplify LCA conference backend and website (can drop elements relevant to miniconfs)
- Increased miniconf organiser workload
- The pereceived value of the conference for both tickets and sponsorship drops
- Miniconfs need to find venue space
- Reduced integration between miniconf communities and main conference communities
- Reduced "foot traffic" of potential miniconf speakers through main LCA
- Conference ticket perceived value drops
- Conference sponsorship perceived value drops
- Venue requirements
- LCA backend and website
Freeplay Parallels: an event that runs during Melbourne International Games Week during the pause in-between when the larger main events of Games Week (GCAP and PAX) run.
Copyleft Conf: ran after FOSDEM 2019. Date and location was chosen to specifically be convenient for those attending FOSDEM.
Papers We Love: overlaps with Strange Loop's first day but is technically its own conference that shares space and costs and support each other.
Most large conferences have a variety of unofficial events pop up around them that are supported by the main conference by listing them as unofficial events on their website or social media channels.
- The pereceived value of the conference for both tickets and sponsorship drops
- Venue requirements most likely simplified
- Costs for those two days eliminated
These consequences are very similar to the above but with a likely reduced community upset. As with the above option the full repurcussions of this are impossible to gauge without actually doing it and seeing.
Another obvious alternative to the current model of running Miniconfs as a "second wave" CFP, but without any budget, would be to make them an official part of the conference, effectively as "specialist streams".
This model is used by, eg, PyConAU, with the first day being a "Specialist Stream" model.
In this model:
-
There would be a very early CFP for specialist stream topics (eg, by March of the year before)
-
Specialist streams would be chosen by, eg, May of the year before
-
CFP for the Specialist Streams would happen at the same time as the main conference CFP, and potential presenters could submit to either (or both)
-
Specialist stream talk selection would involve the proposer/group of the specialist stream (eg, to judge talk merit details), but may or may not be solely their choice
-
Speaker benefits would be dependant on the "amount of presentation" (eg, 5 minute lightning talk, sub-20 minute talk, 20-30 minute talk, 40 minute talk, etc)
-
All 40 minute talks, anywhere in the week, would get the same benefits; shorter talks would get either reduced benefits (eg, "hobbyist ticket" instead of "professional ticket" level) or a discount voucher (eg, "$400 off a ticket of your choice"); potentially lightning talk speakers would get nothing (as lightning talk speakers at the main conference close do not get nothing now).
-
Keeps Linux.Conf.Au as a 5 day conference, which it has effectively been for the last 10+ years
-
Keeps the variety of talks and talk topics
-
Better integration of "specialist days" (Miniconfs) with conferece
-
Access to conference budget (possibly reduced levels) for specialist streams (eg, travel assistance for particular speakers); everything is run through the one budget
-
Rewards all speakers equally for effort put in
-
Avoids the "pay to speak at a miniconf" issue, which is increasingly controversal for potential speakers
-
Talk selection is better integrated; avoids Miniconf speakers being seen as a "second chance, weaker presentation"
-
Specialist Stream coordinators could potentially be more integrated into the main conference team (maybe not all meetings, but at least some of them) as they're chosen early on, reducing "pass along the message" communication
-
Additional speakers getting discounted/funded tickets reduces the overall budget
-
Concern about "weaker" presenters still being funded
-
Loss of "second chance" CFP round / "I just realised I can go to the conference, maybe I'll submit something two weeks before"
-
Financially to make this model work it might be necessary to have fewer/larger Specialist Streams
- the community
- the linux.conf.au event
- Linux Australia