Re: [Debconf-team] German two-bid strategy
Hello again,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:38:57PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Aigars Mahinovs <aigarius@debian.org> [2014-03-06 09:36 +0100]:
> > Actually what is being asked is to develop all proposed options by
> > all teams to such a level that a valid and final decision can be
> > made between all proposed venue options.
>
> You cannot make a valid and final decision at this point anyway,
> since there are no contracts in place yet. You can only decide for
> which of the bid teams you'd like to pursue the organisation of
> DebConf.
>
> > > B) The team develops Munich further to the point where it trumps
> > > Heidelberg, and then choses Munich, because it is the best
> > > proposal;
> > > → everyone happy (and DebConf gets even better)!
> >
> > This takes the final venue decision from Debconf team to local
> > team, which has so far happened only in exceptional cases.
>
> The local teams are the ones that know the venues, so they *should*
> make this decision, obviously with guidance from and in cooperation
> with the committee.
>
> > > C) Heidelberg's venue burns down, so the team falls back to
> > > using Munich;
> > > → everyone happy, for a lesser DebConf is better than no DebConf.
> >
> > Actually - no, not everyone is happy, because a different venue
> > outside Germany would have then been a better choice.
>
> If by that time, the other team is still ready to go, then yes, this
> could happen.
>
> I consider it much more likely that post-bid-decision, one team
> disintegrates and the other starts working together more. So if the
> first choice burns down, I think the existing and active team will
> be much better off at finding a solution than an inactive team
> would, especially if the active team has worked with a backup plan
> from the start.
>
> > If the chosen option fails after the decision is made, that is an
> > extraordinary situation that should not influence the decision as
> > such.
>
> Sure, there's no point in considering this unlikely case at this
> time. However, being prepared and having a backup solution *should*
> be considered, and it is in fact part of the LocationChecklist
> (under 10.)…
>
> > There is *more* competition before the venue decision, so
> > negotiations should be made now, not some time later when options
> > have already become more limited.
>
> We may have a differing understanding of what a negotiation entails.
> When I say negotiation, I am talking about a process of discussing
> conditions, formalising an agreement and signing it to form
> a binding contract.
>
> You are talking about preliminary assessments. Those are important,
> and we have done them, as evidenced by the wiki pages. But we feel
> like there's room for improvement in the pricing. However, no venue
> is going to offer a lower price if they sense that they've already
> been chosen.
>
> Just remember: lower prices means more travel sponsorship.
>
> > IMHO if both Germany bids are still so much in flux that even the
> > local team can not decide now between them,
>
> There is only one German bid, and the primary proposal of the German
> bid (Heidelberg) has been "out of flux" for months. We're ready to
> sign. And this leaves us ample time and energy to work on an
> alternative, Munich, which looks promising, but we're well aware
> that it's not there yet.
>
> > In my eyes the combined German bid would rank lower than either of
> > them individually. This is because of the worst case scenario
> > - German team wins the bid, spends a lot of time and effort
> > developing both bids, mostly the preferred one and then the
> > preferred bid fails and all that time spent on it is wasted and we
> > have a weaker location with far less time spent on developing it.
>
> I think you are suggesting that if the first option fails, having
> a second option available on which you have not spent as much time
> is worse than having no second option available. If you look at past
> DebConfs, I think you will conclude that it would have been *really*
> *good* in some cases, had a team already started developing a backup
> solution — even at low power — before the preferred option fell over.
>
> I find it quite demotivating for you to insinuate that we are
> working on any other agenda than to deliver the best possible
> DebConf. In fact, if you think that is the case, please don't vote
> for us.
Just to clarify a bit, I trust a lot your team, I have no doubts about
your goals and I'm happy that the option I like more seems to be the one
which is most likely to be chosen. I think it'd help a lot if you state
that before the meeting (if it's actually the case).
Best regards,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.''`. Tiago Bortoletto Vaz GPG : 4096R/E4B6813D
: :' : http://acaia.ca/~tiago XMPP : tiago at jabber.org
`. `' tiago _at_ {acaia.ca, debian.org} IRC : tiago at OFTC
`- Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal OS http://www.debian.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: