Hi, On Dienstag, 18. Januar 2011, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I'm sorry that I've been silent and away from a lot of Debian/DebConf > mailing lists due to work issues. Same here. > > (http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/LocationCheckList). Bids should be [...] > However, I think it's not fruitful to have such a long thing called a > "checklist". I agree. I'm not sure if this makes sense to you (all), but to me its rather a list of things to check, than a checklist. To me, a checklist is a list where every item needs to be fullfilled, while the other thing is a list, where every item should be checked and then might (or not) be acted upon. "ThingsToConsiderWhenCheckingALocation" or such. > I think we should divide the checklist into "Bid core information" > (for bid choosing) and "Venue checklist" (for DC organising). Yup. > If there's agreement about this, I could divide the page in two > (although it would only have effect for DC13, since DC12 bids have > already gone through the hated completion of the checklist) I think it still can have an effect on DC12. (I dont imagine the venues to be finally settled now ;) > > * A description of how their bid meets each of the points on the > > priority list (http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/PriorityList). [..] > The PriorityList is called "priority", but nobody really agreed on the > priorities. IIRC we did agree on priorities, this list is sorted by them, the top prios being on the top. What we didnt agree on, was, what this ment. Venue A beats Venue B on Prios 1,6+7, while B beats A on 2-5. Now what? IME this resulted in what I perceived as an "arbitrary decision process" for the dc11 lottery^wdecission. (From my POV it looked like we discussed how many points we give each venue for the different areas, then there was a tie (or a very close result, like (i dont remember), 21.5 to 22 points in favor of something) and then Bosnia was arbitrary choosen because we already had a soooo long meeting. To be clear, I don't (and didnt) object to Bosnia being choosen for DC11, but about how this was done. I'd like us to use a clearer and better documented process for the DC12 decision. I'm happy that we continue to develop this and that we release early and often, but this shouldnt make us think we have a sound process. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.