Re: [Debconf-team] [DC14] Portland team: DebConf in the USA
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:20:32AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ana Guerrero dijo [Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:11:57PM +0100]:
> > My comment is meta to what Gunnar is saying:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:28:52AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > We will find unacceptable lines with each of the proposals. But it is
> > > not the right time to get too much into the details on how and what
> > > offers to make - Lets first decide on the bids. Stating the visa
> > > problem is enough for now. We should later come to decisions on how to
> > > implement a workaround for said problems, if needed.
> >
> > If one of the venues have a big negative point, we shouldn't ignore it,
> > instead talk in advance and give the possibility to the people bidding to
> > fix it. (when possible and reasonable)
> > E.g. I find the hotels prices in Venezuela extremely high, I could ignore
> > that point thinking we can find a workaround with cheaper hotels later and
> > focus in the bid overall. Later, it can happen that the venezuelan team
> > agrees in looking for other hotels (as has happened in previous years)
> > or they can say they only will organize debconf in the selected hotels
> > because they believed this was already chosen (as happened this year)
>
> Humm... I stand (no surprises!) with OdyX here. I *do* feel this is in
> no way the moment to nitpick on how visa issues should be handled, as
> we have historically shown that it's an issue that can be addressed
> effectively much later on. Visas are a difficult problem, wherever the
> conference happens to be, and we should not spend discussion time on
> visa issues at this stage. It's not "ignoring" the issue, but
> acknowledging we are aware of it, and will deal with it responsably.
>
Please, read the full thread conversation with odyx before answering...
This has nothing to do with the possible USA visa issues.
> I'm not beating the LeCamp horse again, as there wil always be
> opposing opinions. I disagree with your assessment. But lets leave it
> aside.
If you all don't want to learn from the mistakes made in the past,
we have a bigger problem.
Reply to: