Moray Allan dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:01:00PM +0000]: > Here is a further draft of the decision process, again updated to take > into account people's comments. Thanks a lot for preparing this draft. It feels like every year we are having the same discussion... And hopefully putting it in a coherent, written form will help us save this time. I'm skipping important parts of your mail - As it is an already agreed process, which I don't think we should go too deep into details if we can avoid it. > (...) > Bid teams submit proposals before the end of that year. Teams are > free to submit additional materials, but the core of a bid is > responses to questions determined in advance by the DebConf team. > Bids should be posted to the DebConf wiki, and announced on the > DebConf mailing list. > > Once a bid has been posted, everyone is encouraged to read the > materials, and to ask questions about them on the debconf-team list. > Bid teams should give any additional information requested, and update > their bid pages in the wiki to reflect significant points. Bid teams > remain free to change aspects of their bids, but at this stage details > such as costs should be researched immediately for any new proposals, > so that it remains possible to see full and accurate bid information. I feel that a source of work duplication is that bidding venues go too much into detail because of not knowing what they should work on for each of the steps - This is, as an example, it's quite hard to get good, final prices from hotels ~18 months in advance, or precise quotings on what bandwidth will be available. Of course, the more information the better, but we don't need a full and final proposal for the first meetings. And, of course, we should not make it apparent that something that was announced in a bid document has to remain final - If cheaper or better alternatives are found, we are more than willing to go for them. Also, maybe we should delineate clearly we don't want luxury, we prefer good working spaces and conditions? I have seen several times in the past a lot of effort going into getting a better quote from a five-star hotel or such... > (...) > Venue decision meeting agenda: > > * Quick introduction from each team, and quick questions to each team. > Ideally by now everyone should already be clear on the bid statuses. Stress on _quick_. We have interacted enough with the teams, and should not really need much introduction by now. > * The DebConf Committee members are asked to vote to decide which bid > to take forward. If there is already clear consensus, this may simply > mean voicing their assent to the apparent decision. If there are > still more than two bids in contention, a formal vote (using Debian's > normal voting methods) may have to be run after the meeting, but the > vote should be held and the result announced as soon as possible. Consensus should be highly prefered. Few things are as demotivating to a local group as sitting on their announcement waiting for a tight vote to pass. > Committee members who are part of a bid team should announce this on > the debconf-team list before the meeting, and abstain from voting. I hereby announce I will not be a part of this decision meeting, as I have been working with the Nicaraguan group, and cannot view myself as neutral/objective enough.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature