Hi, On Sonntag, 20. März 2011, Moray Allan wrote: > As said elsewhere, it should come down (at worst) to a non-private > vote using Debian's standard procedures. I'm not sure you are referred to this, but I consider the irc meeting where I brought this up sarcastically as one of the worsts moments of future debconf venue decision meetings. But yes, I agree with what you wrote here. At worst it will come down to voting, and why not use Debian standard procedures for this. But I think the decision process should define this as a *last* measure, when consensus cannot be found. And the emphasis should be how to find consensus, ie. by defining the criterias a venue must fulfill and the relative importance of each point (ie network quality is more important than available sports activities). Also, I rather prefer to here in more detail why $person prefers this bid, than just seeing "+1 for bid c" > Beyond that, I don't think we can really define precisely how people > should decide their votes: if we can come up with clear agreed > criteria, those criteria should already be used in the stage where we > try to reach a decision by consensus. So if things reach a vote, it's > because whatever criteria we had thought of already turned out not to > be clear enough. The point of the vote is then to make a decision > between the different interpretations of our criteria. Agreed. > We already tried in the past to go to the extreme of clearly defined > criteria, ordered weighted options, and numerical scores for each > point, but that didn't really solve any problems, and made some of the > arguments worse, as teams felt they had to argue about the precise > numerical scores or about the precise weighting of different points. > If the bids are close, this doesn't really get us anywhere though, as > we've shown we *can't* agree on this precise level (and if they're not > close, it's a waste of time). As well. > Instead I argue we should discuss the priority list points more > informally, seeing what is good and bad, then openly discuss people's > thoughts on the bids' overall merits, trying to reach consensus as in > past years. Then, as in past years, we may need a vote, but now that > possibility is defined in advance, rather than us making up the > procedure as we go along. Also. It just took me three times reading to see that voting is not "the usual way" as described in this very paragraph. I fear that if we leave the wording / emphasis like this, in three years voting _will_ be the default procedure and seeking consensus (and not voting at all) will be forgotten. "here, we have a tool, so we always use it". cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.