Re: [Debconf-team] Submissions for DebConf8 wanted
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/2006 06:37 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:36, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>>>future DebConfs should be even better prepared than they are now, thats
>>>why we (debconf-team) decided to plan DebConfs for two years in advance
>>>from now.
>>
>>That heavily implies we are doing a bad job.
>
> Hm. I tried to word it, so it doesnt sound like this. (But it seems I wasn't
> so successful :) Any suggestions for a better wording?
Something like: (non-native, just ideas)
"
Debconf Team is always working to improve DebConf experience,
considering this, we start the DebConf process two years in
advance to give local teams the opportunity to help in the
organization process to get more experience.
"
>>Currently I dislike the idea of deciding on DebConf9 Location in
>>Edinburgh. Maybe 2 or 3 months after it. Still a long time then until
>>the Conf.
>
> Hm, thats what we discussed the first time in Mexico even, IIRC, and I never
> heard objections to it. But of course you can only raise objections once you
> realize them :)
I think that maybe we are pushing the two year faster than
expected. I'm in favour of two years ahead preparation but not to
decide it. If I'm not wrong, the idea was:
* Decide DebConf8 ahead of the time, to get the local team at DC7
* Ask for candidates for DC9 to get at least one person in DC7 to
present the bid. Decide at DC7 where we are going to hold DC9.
* Keep the schedule, call candidates of DC10 and decide it at DC8.
If this is still true, we should decide DC8 by the end of
this year (or beginning of 2007), to get the DC8 local team at DC7
so they can learn and improve the whole DC experience. :-)
Then, at DC7, we have scheduled sessions to see DC9 candidates.
We can change the model to decide the location after DC7 via IRC or
mail lists, but sincerely, I do think it should be better if we can
have a first candidate and a backup location decided two years ahead.
From what I had heard during DC6, Gunnar start thinking about
Mexico as a candidate two years in advance, I'm not sure for how much
time Edinburgh thought about being an oficial candidate. But I do
think that having DC candidates showing their locations at DC can
certainly improve the decision time.
*Maybe*, we should change it for 18 months cycle, which means:
* Decide DC8 by the end of this year (beginning of 2007).
* Get DC9 candidates to present their locations at DC7 (mid 2007)
* Decide DC9 by the end of 2007/begin of 2008.
* Get DC10 candidates to present their locations at DC8 (mid 2008)
* Decide DC10 by the end of 2008/begin of 2009.
> I still like the idea of sitting together at DebConf and discussing and
> deciding the venue in RL, but I see your point. Other opinions on this?
+1
I'm really in favour of trying to reach consensus at DC.
Perhaps we need to change a little bit the decision process to
restrict it to the candidates and DC Team.
>>Reason - we are working on DC7 right now. The decision for DC8 is coming
>>soon also. And then preparing enough for a DC9 bid (Germany wants to
>>have a DebConf then! :) ) seems to be a bit much in my eyes currently.
>
> Drop the idea of having DebConf in Germany then ;-) *eg*
>
> More seriously I dont think the DebConf8 decision procedure should still be
> relevant by then... (for the people bidding for 9)
But DC9 candidates need to show up a couple of months before DC7.
I do think that it should be worth to sponsor one person from a
candidate bid (three or four bids) as long as they aggree to work with
us to learn. And of course, if they try to take advantage and do not
cooperate, the bid lost "points".
>>>P.S.: And off course, you can also start planning for DebConf9 now ;-)
>>
>>For reasons said above I would drop that.
>
> No. Anybody can start thinking about 2009 now - it's also partly a joke.
>
> Thanks for the other comments!
>
> I will wait for other replies and send a second draft either later today or
> tomorrow.
>
>
> regards,
> Holger
Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFU8ftCjAO0JDlykYRAmKxAJ9NOEh/ai6cL3OSfelYYmbVWNz0fgCfWTwA
/Jo0s8Qbn1ihQxZWAKcsmL4=
=BFnM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: