FOO Camp: I Don't Understand The Anger

O'Reilly's FOO (Friends Of O'Reilly) Camp continues to draw all sorts of flames:

[Scripting News: 8/30/2006 by Dave Winer]

There are a lot of people pissed at O'Reilly, every time you do another exclusive event, more people are getting angry. But so far they're not saying anything publicly because your company has said, clearly, that if you say anything negative about them, you won't be invited. Enough people still have some hope that they don't want to be the one to say how they feel about it. But there's lots of back channel grumbling.

Me, I am an ornery dude. If someone tells me that I have to shut up or I won't get invited, my response is to tell you to fuck off, in public, loudly. I value my independence more than anything. I don't want an invite to FOO Camp next year, or the year after. If you want me to sign something that says I will never under any circumstances come to FOO Camp, I'll sign it. So I'm not kissing up here, I don't want an invite.

But what I do want is to avoid a bloody mess. We have work to do here. We have a bubble-pop to avoid. We need to start doing some real investing in technology, not the BS that passes for technology investing that's been going on for the last decade.

So if you could take Tim aside, and say look, this isn't working, we have to grow bigger, and let people say what they think about us, and our role in the industry. We're not going to be able to keep a lid on it much longer, and it's better to let it out in a way where people know we're listening and we want to work with them.

[...]

We need to get all hands involved in what we used to call Web 2.0. It's time for it to stop being exclusive, and it's way past time for one company to be controlling who's supposed to participate. I've totally earned the respect of this community, and dammit it's time O'Reilly to show some of that. You've behaved really inappropriately for a company of your stature. Let's get past this, and let's start building, and forget whatever it is that's been in our way.

Dave's handwringing is echoed by Kent Newsome ("If people were really interested in effecting positive change, the blogosphere would get together and boycott invitiation-only throwbacks like Foo Camp.").

But, candidly, I don't get it. Why can't we have closed meetings? Can't a company like O'Reilly invite a bunch of people to get together and talk about issues that are important to the company's future business? Does everything they do have to be open to the public, just because they are influential?

Dave seems to suggest that because Tim O'Reilly was/is involved in the definition of Web 2.0 -- an idea very much in the public domain these days -- then he is breaking some kind of implicit trust by sponsoring a get together of some collection of bright minds.

I was invited to a small meeting a few weeks ago at Yahoo, where Bradley Horowitz asked Michael Arrington and me, along with two or three other outsiders, to a give and take about Yahoo's innovation initiatives, especially with regard to instant messaging. Should everyone be invited to that meeting? Has Yahoo broken some implicit trust?

My guess is that this is supposed greivance is really sour grapes: if I am not invited, then I will expose it for the elitist holdover that it is!

[Full disclosure: I have not been to FOO Camp (their loss), and have had no formal relationship with O'Reilly other than attending a conference or two.]

tags: foo+camp, tim+oreilly, dave+winer, kent+newsome

Comments

[Robert Scoble]

I think the point is that Foo isn't just doing O'Reilly business, but there's so-called open software work done there as well as other stuff (product development). Getting locked out of those conversations isn't nice and taints the processes that things happen there (and keeps some voices from being heard on those issues).

[Stowe Boyd]

Robert - I see your point with regard to open source activities, but otherwise it's just sour grapes.

[Ben Metcalfe]

Robert beat me to it, but I just want to re-emphasise the point.

What rubs me up about FOO Camp is that people, generally, are speaking about matters relating to Open Source and the wider Internet community.

And because it's people of notable fame/power/influence those discussions are more likely to become strategy/direction/a real project etc. It's therefore easy for that group of people to believe they *are* Open Source - or at least the 'directors', 'leaders'.

I really have no problems with you going to advise Yahoo! about IM and their other stuff behind a closed door. That's Yahoo's enterprise you are all talking about. But that's not the case with FOO Camp.

[PeterS]

If FOO were an exclusive event and O'Reilly kept quiet about what happened there - like your meeting at Yahoo - then no one would care. But they make a huge deal out of the proceedings, which less face it, is good business for O'Reilly. Being an uber-geek means having exclusive access to new ideas. Make no mistake, FOO is not an exercise in altuism. It's a business event intended to keep O'Reilly in the Web 2.0 driver's seat. But inevitably, the event starts to look like the MTV Awards but without the TV coverage - a self-congratulatory, back-slapping love in, that makes everyone on the other side of the velvet rope feel like outsiders. In the long run, I don't think that's a wise business move.

[Clint Ecker]

Stowe, as far as I can see, that's the only point that Dave is trying to make.

[Clint Ecker]

Stowe: As far as I can see, that's really the only point that Dave is trying to make. I see in his post that he vehemently denies any "sour grapes."

[Dave Sanders]

This will never get past moderation, but:

Are you freaking kidding me? My god people, look at yourselves. If some of you want to go have a private clubhouse - who cares? You are one little bit of one little group of people working with technology in one little corner of the world. Go ahead and put out a "Keep Out" sign. The rest of us will go on doing what we do, with or without you.

Why is this even a story? Someone needs to hold a big huge mirror up to this whole blogging / Web 2.0 community and say "so you are inventing cool stuff. Great - we end consumers all love it, and we developers think its cool to hook into, and are glad to see you do neat stuff. But you aren't the end of the world... there were innovators before you and there will be innovators after you.... you really aren't all that special. Get over yourselves."

Scoble said: "Getting locked out of those conversations isn't nice "

Boo frickin' hoo. Go build something better on your own then. Or wait until the source comes out and fork it like everyone else who isn't in the "in" crowd does. If you want to participate, then do it. Don't complain that you aren't part of the committee.

I'm starting to think that this whole madness of the second boom is just as crazy as the first. When we were developing the first boom, and I was working 100+ hour weeks to build ecommerce sites, at least we weren't all hyped up about ourselves. We didn't know what we were doing, or what effect it would have, but we did it anyway. And lots of people (not us) got rich off of it. Now it just seems like there's too many people with too much time on their hands and ridiculous chips on their shoulders thinking they have some mandate from heaven to tear all that down and build it in their image, while holding huge public spats about who is better than who.

Really. You look ridiculous. The rest of us are going to go back to work. Keep your clubhouses.

[PeterS]

The Register joins the fray. - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/31/web_20_conference/

[Danny]

The open source "tainting" point is a red herring. If it's open source software, the way in which it was developed is irrelevant (consider the number of previously commercial projects later released to the wild). If it's specification work, then standards orgs have some safeguards built in, e.g. the IETF is based around general consensus. A certain subset of the working group could join together to try and maximise their collective influence, but that can happen just as easily through other channels like email.

I think there are some sour grapes on display, some damaged egos - how else can you interpret "I've totally earned the respect of this community, and dammit it's time O'Reilly to show some of that.".

Winer's had antagonism towards O'Reilly for many years, at least since he bizarrely accused O'Reilly of stealing "his" RSS format (Winer subsequently blustered when challenged on his contribution). There's a certain irony here with open standards work being mentioned in recent discussions, Winer has sole control over what went into RSS 2.0 (although it was for the most part derived from other people's work).

[Tim O'Reilly]

Peter S. -- I'm curious. You say "O'Reilly makes a huge deal out of this event." Where? We don't publicize it at all. It's open for the attendees to make of it what they will, but in fact, it's always been a private event, and is entirely analogous to the event at Yahoo!

As to there being something wrong with the event if people discuss anything with regard to open standards or open source -- that also seems like a bizarre accusation. There's a huge amount of open standards and open source discussion that happens behind closed doors. How many of you were at the last Apache Software Foundation board meeting, or the last Mozilla Foundation board meeting?

People come to FOO Camp, and they discuss whatever they want to discuss. We don't organize any standards activity -- and if people want to work on new ideas, they will eventually need to bring them out into the wider world, just like they would need to do if that meeting happened over a few beers in the local bar instead of at FOO Camp.

[Brian McConnell]

I am an O'Reilly author and FOO Camp attendee in previous years. I think people need to relax and get some perspective about this. It's called FOO (as in Friends of O'Reilly). People act like it is the tech industry's Bohemian Club.

I attended in 2003-2005 (before 2005 nobody cared about it because it was just O'Reilly getting editors, authors and friends of the company together for a meet up). O'Reilly's original motive for the event was to round up a grab bag of authors, staff, and interesting people he'd met over the years and have everyone hang out for a weekend, partly so that his company could get some insight into what people were working on (and thus what books might sell well in a year or two). He is a tech publisher, so his job is to watch trends.

The idea behind FOO Camp is very straightforward that way. It's not PC Forum, and it's not about people plotting the future of the industry. The three years I went, it was mostly writers and friends of the company (many of whom were past or present authors), hanging out, exchanging ideas, and having drinks. It wouldn't work with 2,000 people. It only works with a small crowd.

In Tim's defense, he could have turned FOO Camp into TED and charged people several grand a head for the privilege of rubbing elbows with Larry Page. He didn't. Some of the invited were industry a-list types (though almost all had some sort of connection to the company as authors or open source contributors). Many were not, and probably half the people there would not have felt comfortable coughing up even a nominal fee to attend (most authors are not rich).

I'd rather see Tim limit attendance by asking his editors to invite people who are doing interesting work (yes, that's subjective) than limit it based on ability to pay. Either way, some can go, others not. To his credit, Tim invites a lot of people who are not "big names", alongside those who are, which makes it a really interesting event.

I never went because of the exclusivity of the event. I went to spend time with editors and other authors who I'd otherwise never meet in person. Maybe others had different motives, but mostly I saw other people who'd somehow worked with the company over the years, or worked in an area of interest that the company published books about.

That's really all there is to it.

[Kathy Sierra]

This whole FOO fight thing continues to be a huge mystery to me too. I think Brian did a great job of explaining the FOO I know (as one of those O'Reilly authors).

It seems absurd to call for an "inclusive" event, and to claim that it's wrong for people to discuss industry-related topics or accomplish "real work" if it isn't completely open. As Tim suggested, that is like saying two open source guys can't discuss anything over beer that might involve "real work" that could potentially be relevant. So, in this politically correct quest for "inclusivity", how many topics are now on the forbidden list? If Tim (or any one of us) decides to have a dinner party, do we greet the guests with a "censored" topics sheet? Are we required to turn a webcam on every time we talk with someone about something professionally meaningful?

This is just silly. And Brian's right -- MOST of the people there are not names you've ever heard of... the complaints I see tend to focus on the "A" listers who, to be honest, half the people at FOO have never heard of. To me, the closest analogy to FOO *IS* a dinner party where the host deliberately tries to bring a specific group of people together who he thinks will make for lively conversations. Tim said he really enjoys (and is good at) playing matchmaker. Only rather than romantic matches, he likes to hook up two or more people who he thinks would find one another's work or hobbies interesting, but who would otherwise have never crossed paths. To foster innovation (and to have fun), he deliberately involves people from a wide range of domains--not just tech.

Last FOO had artists of all types, entertainers, musicians, filmmakers, activists, etc. NOT just the "usual suspects."

[Kyle]

I also don't understand the FOO controversy. I'd much rather channel time and energy into organizing a BarCamp (which I did) than whining about FOO Camp. Props to FOO Camp for pioneering the unconference format, and props to Tantek for recasting it in an open form for those looking to join in the fun.