On 28 Apr 2002, at 1:46, Pat Eyler wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, David Alan Black wrote:
>> ... the more complex a plan, and the broader the 
>> consensus it requires, the less likely it is ever to happen.  I think Ruby
>> camps should be encouraged to spring up as much as
>> possible. Not that multiple concurrent ruby gatherings could never
>> happen -- but it would be bad for people, eager to have little
>> codefests, not to just go ahead with it.
> 
> Hmm, true.  I didn't wan't to supplant the Ruby Camps, but to
> complement them.  I think they serve similar ends but probably
> target different groups (with some overlap though.) 
> >
> > Although... maybe there could be some kind of repository or
> > checkout system for Ruby-camp-driven projects... though I'd
> > want to encourage people to get together even if it isn't part
> > of a larger effort.
> 
> Yes - providing tools is good, but too much central
> governance can inhibit just getting together and doing
> something.  Perhaps it would be best to let a couple of Ruby
> Camps just happen, and try to pull together ideas, hints, and
> a suggested tool kit from the participants/coordinators. 

If folk who hold Ruby camps (of whatever stripe) publish what 
went well, what went badly, what they'd like to have happen 
again, and what they never want to see happen again, I think 
that would help inform the camps that form spontaneously in 
the future.

Plus - a Ruby-camps CVS server sounds like a good idea - 
maybe it could just be set up as a SourceForge project, and 
spun off whenever it gets big enough?



Cheers,
     Euan
xlucid / users.sourceforge.net

'I would live all my life in nonchalance and insouciance,
Were it not for making a living, which is rather a nouciance'
 - Ogden Nash