Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf13 decision meeting: past and present
Hi,
All the you in this email are plural "you".
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 07:20:09PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > And also, the bid was presented with some assumptions that
> > later have not worked as expected. I was expecting the team (local and
> > global) working in getting the bid better, not worse as it has became in
> > the last months.
>
> Can you be more precise there ? As I (biasedly) see it, it has got better, not
> worse in the last months.
The points I presented below in my first mail were the things that have gotten
worse. Could you tell me what has gotten better?
> > * accommodation and camping.
> > (…)
> >
> > What is the situation now:
> > We can't camp.
>
> That's wrong.
>
> > It is explicitly stated in the "conditions générales" [3]
> > of le camp that camping is forbidden. Any override of this conditions must
> > be clearly specified in the contract, which isn't the case at this moment.
>
> This has been written already several times, but let's repeat it here: We've
> been told, in several face-to-face meetings with the responsible of LeCamp,
> that we would be allowed to camp. As we are having a trustful relation with
> him, even if it's not (yet ?) written down, we are confident (I am 100%
> confident; not 99%, 100%) that we'll be allowed to camp during DebConf.
If it isn't in the contract, we can not know for certain we'll be able to
camp. The responsible of Le Camp has a board behind of him who can overrule
him or he can decide for whatever reason he is finally not happy with it.
This is very clear in the "conditions générales".
> That putting things in a biased perspective. Many rooms have less than 6 beds
> per room, in modern buildings.
I added in my original email the list of rooms and sizes, people can make
easily their own perspectives.
> > The alternative is car+hotel that is quite expensive even for swiss
> > prices given you don't have a lot of hotels to choose from around. I did a
> > quick search and if DebConf were in Geneva, people staying in a hotel
> > would have only half of the costs.
>
> Yes. But people "not in hotels" would sleep in anti-nuclear underground
> bunkers. I (for one) am not interested in organising a conference where the
> richers can get hotel beds and the rest is supposed to go sleep under the
> ground (literally).
>
> I think LeCamp provides globally (on average/median) better hosting conditions
> for cheaper than what we could get in Geneva.
You also can compare with Interlaken. My point here was the looking for
alternative accommodation near le camp is very expensive even for swiss
standards. While in another venue be Geneva, be Interlaken, while still not
affordable for everybody, it would be affordable for a larger number of
people.
Your sentence about the richers only being able to afford the best
accommodation is already applied in 'le camp' were you plan to have a fee
for people wanting to have a better bed/room and maybe also give this room
in priority to professionals.
> > The problem with the big rooms and having all the people together in le
> > camp is the total lack of privacy: people attending DebConf will be
> > surrounded by people 24/7 which is very tiring emotionally for a lot of
> > people.
>
> Le Camp is also isolated and "at" a forest: you can be literally "alone in the
> woods" (and safe) within 5 minutes walk. That was not possible in
> DebConf1{1,2} as far as I'm concerned.
>
> And people won't be "surrounded by people 24/7", that's again a biased way to
> put it.
If the only way you have to be 5min alone is going alone in the forest, I have
not words...
> > * possibility of external catering
> >
> > (…)
> > 198.46153846153845
> >
> > we wouldn't reach the threshold.
>
> I disagree. And on top of that, I'm really (really) tired of this dance: the
> biggest initial concern against LeCamp was that it was too small (!). This has
> been hashed on our heads for months: we should be looking for something else
> because it will certainly be filled, by far. I don't think it's fair to use
> the exact inverse argument now, sorry.
Could you point to any email or where in the decision meeting was concerned
about le camp size? I don't remember any of that.
> We spent _lots_ of time and energy investigating possible venues _before_
> choosing that one (this was last year, in autumn). We kept a very clear track
> record of that on the wiki. Back then (before and after the decision) we have
> not been listened, for understandable reasons already explained before. We
> (alone) then picked the solution we thought would be best and that would fit
> our vision most closely. We presented both our vision and our choice
> (including the alternatives) to the decision meeting. Then we got the critics,
> mostly about the vision and venue we had proposed (while accepted by the
> decision meeting).
> This all felt (and feels) like not trusting us as a group, for the work we did
> before and after the decision meeting and for the experience we tried to bring
> in.
As said in my previous email, we have two different visions about the
decision meeting was about. You think what won was le camp and I say that
what I voted was trusting the swiss team to work in having the DebConf Debian needs.
I still trust the team and I hope we end having the DebConf Debian needs and
not the DebConf some you dream to have not matter what.
Ana
Reply to: