Re: [Debconf-team] German two-bid strategy
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> I understand that the reason for the two German bids is that this would
> allow the team to negotiate better conditions from the two options if
> they win the bid. While that is true, there is no reason why these
> negotiations could not have happened before today; in fact, one could
> argue that the whole point of the bidding process is to have this kind
> of negotiations take place with the stick of a little competition behind
> the door; we have, in fact, been talking to some options with that as an
> added note of information.
We obviously put venues into competing positions already, but please
keep in mind that due to the sheer size of our sample set[1] there's
an upper limit on effort. It's also hard to get anyone to commit if we
cannot commit ourselves, and for that we need to know whether our team
will host DC15 before entering negotiations. In our experience,
initial quotes based on what-if and finalized pricing tend to vary
wildly.
We agreed from the start that only venue options which we considered
better than all other bids would make our short list and we pruned our
list aggressively. E.g. Nuremberg is as least as developed as either
Mechelen or Karlskrona, but we didn't include it on purpose to focus
on the very best of the best.
> As such, this strategy feels a bit like trying to game the system to me;
> by keeping their options open when winning the bid, the German team gets
> something of an unfair advantage -- I would be quite upset if debconf15
> goes to Germany on the idea that one of the two bids is better than
> Mechelen, only to then find out that this one bid can't work out and we
> have to go to the other location.
We are sorry if you feel this way and this is not our intention. We
are not trying to win a game; we want to make the best possible
DebConf15 happen and chose our strategy accordingly.
We communicated our approach and status clearly, publically, and in
English on the DebConf wiki. It would have been possible for all other
teams to chose a multi-pronged approach as well, given time and
resources.
That we did so, and that we managed to come up with more than one
option, is proof that our team is willing to invest a _lot_ of time
and effort into doing things early and thoroughly, and that we do not
take chances. Turning this around and making it a disadvantage does
feel arbitrary at best.
> By postponing the decision in this way, the German team is in effect
> bypassing the decision meeting's deadline; this feels especially acerbic
> in light of <20140121032028.GA23562@fishbowl.rw.madduck.net>, where
> Martin asked for a quick decision.
>From what we know, the only real deadline was to submit bids by the
end of 2013, and we submitted our bid in time. That we developed
several alternatives all along and submitted two of them does not bend
any rules we are aware of.
By the deadline, there was only one valid bid. We deliberately avoided
calling attention to this to ensure that all bids could become the
best possible bids by the time a decision is made.
> I'm not asking to disqualify the German team, or anything of the sorts.
> However, I am asking the German team to reconsider their strategy; I
> understand their desire to keep their options open, but I think it's not
> the best strategy on the whole.
We debated this extensively and we strongly feel that this is a valid
and, for us, the optimal approach. Matter of fact, we believe that our
approach is better than focusing on a single venue too early which
results in limited options, and we would wish that more teams should
use the same strategy.
> If the German team decides not to change their strategy, then I would
> like to reiterate Patty's question of last night, and ask the committee
> to please consider both options when deciding; that is, the German bids
> should only win if the committee considers that _both_ German options
> are superior to all other options.
To be precise, one option should be better and the other one at least
as good as all other bids.
You could even argue that if all four venue options are considered
equal, having two options in one bid would be an advantage.
If this is a concern that's shared by the committee, it is well within
their right to consider our bid as two separate bids which happen to
share the local team. We believe that this would not be a good choice,
but bow to it if that would make the difference between winning and
losing the bid.
We would also like to point out that the venue is only part of the
bid. The ability to raise sponsor money and the size, redundancy,
dedication, timeliness, and commitment of the local team should be
taken into account as well.
All our answers to this list have been vetted, improved and
co-authoren by several people before being sent out. At all meetings,
several of us could make it somehow.
Contrary to that, the other bid teams seem to be spearheaded by one or
only a few people at this relatively early stage.
On behalf of the German team,
Richard
[1] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf15/Germany/VenueScouting
Reply to: