Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf discussion: Venue bid process
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:23 PM, gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:43:59 +0000, Moray Allan wrote:
>> (b) what improvements we could make to the process in the future.
>> - Venue decision meeting 2:
>>[...]
> These stages worked quite well in my experience.
Yes, but I'd suggest we ask bid teams, more strongly than before, to
prepare these answers in advance, and simply to post a link during the
meeting. (As you say, there's a problem of bid teams getting tired
during the meetings, and there's no reason to extend the meeting
itself by having teams write answers then.)
> - Going through the priority list sounds reasonable and is necessary
> in one way or another; I've perceived it as extremely long and
> tedious in prior meetings, and my impression was that it favoured
> those who had more endurance and "fought" harder, and disadvantaged
> teams who were more willing to concede own weak points (or were
> simply less awake or less vocal). Especially the disputes about
> "half points" and the bargaining ("Ok, same for point A if we get
> more for point B") seemed counterproductive to me.
Sure. And anyway, since the points are not of equal value, but
there's no agreed precise weighting, it's a little pointless to get
bargain our way to exact numbers of points. Obviously there's an
advantage in making it clear where bids have advantages/disadvantages,
so that the process is transparent, but that's not enough to make the
final decision simply a mathematical sum.
> - "A decision is made." sums up my main issue quite well -- it's not
> specified who takes the decision and how it's taken.
This is a clear flaw in the current process. In the past when the
answer has not been clear (no consensus), it has finally come down to
letting a few people take the decision. It would be preferable to
agree in advance who that group is to be. Even in years when there
has been apparent consensus, there has been some embarrassment in
knowing who should halt the discussion and announce a winner.
The obvious resolution would be to give an appropriate group an
official DPL delegation for choosing the venue. As delegates they
should still follow the precedent of looking for consensus, but a
delegation would add clarity over who has the power to make a final
decision.
What are others' thoughts on this?
--
Moray
Reply to: