[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf10 decision process?


On Samstag, 17. Januar 2009, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> After this, what about doing 3 meetings? I would suggest the following:
> - first two meetings people can ask prospective localteams questions about
> their bids. I am suggesting 2 meeting to give the chance to everybody to
> attend at least one.
> - A third meeting when we make the decision using the same method with
> strong and weak points that we used to choose between Argentina and
> Venezuela. Somebody have a pointer to that list, btw?


I think we should start with the LocationChecklist right away. Having two 
unstructured meetings with repetitive content only wastes time, I think. At 
least thats what I imagine when I read "2 meetings, to give everybody a 
chance to ask questions". I think people who cannot attend such an 
introduction meeting can and should ask via email.

My idea for the first DebConf10 meeting was to hear from the bids whether they 
think they are ready, discuss pozential problems/blockers early and then ask 
them to fill out http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/LocationCheckList for the 2nd 
meeting. I think the first meeting should be (planned to be) short. (30min 
total or so)

Then go through those lists in the 2nd meeting, hopefully finding a clear 
choice to make the 3rd meeting unneeded :) i expect this to be a long 
meeting. (2h or so, maybe more.)

Else, have the 3rd meeting with the voting like we had for DebConf7 for 
deciding between Sarajevo and Edinburgh. If this meeting takes place, I 
expect this to last long too. 

> Also, what about the bid of Quito, Ecuador? If we set a deadline in the
> past to present bid and it is over, then I think it should be rejected. If
> not, how do you people feel about it?

First, I think we would be stupid (and very much debian-unlike) to reject a 
great bid just because it wasn't ready in time. Debian is famous to be ready 
when it's ready! :)

Second, (much to my dismay) we dont plan to treat the far more important 
deadline (when the location has to be decided) as seriously. In the DebConf10 
talk at dc7 the general consensus was, that we will try to have decided by 
march 1st, but latest at april 1st. And I'm convinced we won't go crazy for 
fulfilling that timeline neither, if we dont match it "by chance anyway" :)

Third, the bid was late(r than we asked for), but still in time for the first 
DebConf10 decission meeting. And, most importantly, it sounds like a 
promising bid. If people^wdebconf organizers share this evaluation (that it 
is a promising bid), then I think we should accept the bid because of that, 
and not ignore it, because an arbitrary deadline (see #2 above) was missed.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: