On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 19:33 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I don't understand the claim that DebConf 6 failed. That wasn't my > perception at all -- it had problems, certainly; every conference > does. But I definitely think that it served a few valuable purposes: [...] Yes, this was part of my point. What I am seeing here could be described as taking only the negative -- failed, if you will -- aspects of DebConf6 and using those as a reason for restructuring the organising team. The chosen course of action escalated the issue and brought people who were not originally involved in any dispute into the middle of one. It also cut short previously started, long-term work to improve the team and the conference in a more fundamental way. So I agree with you that it is not accurate to describe the entire DebConf6 as a failure, at least not for most participants. However, I do think that the organisational team failed to reach the goals they had set for themselves in several respects, and that is probably the right context to understand the expression "failure" in. That also seems to be the background against which attempts at corrective action have been made, the delegation of venue selection and its withdrawal being two examples. -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part