Hi, 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? http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/PriorityList http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/LocationCheckList 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. regards, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.