Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf discussion: Venue bid process
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> wrote:
> 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.
Right. I took out the explicit references to the current checklist,
as I agree we should look at reforming it (it has grown bigger over
several years as people added questions on their pet topics).
> 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...
We should certainly write some more introductory "how to bid"
information giving advice on what we look for, but I don't think that
needs to be part of the formal bid process document.
>> 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.
Right -- I only added it in because it was in this year's meeting.
>> * 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.
Yes. But I think fighting over fractions of numerical points over
many hours is even more demotivating.
Do you have concrete patches to suggest for the document? (I'm happy
if you, or others, do.)
--
Moray
Reply to: