martin f krafft dijo [Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:38:57PM +0100]: > > > 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. Right, we will be choosing a team. But we will also be expressing the preference for a place. Both things at once. Disgregating it to two different bids makes things be unnecessarily more complex. And your competing bidding team is right to feel at a disadvantage. Of course, they could have done the same, but they didn't do so in time. > 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. Umf... Remember that for DC13 a lot of teeth-gnashing (to put it VERY mildly) erupted because at some point there was the discussion whether Le Camp would be the right venue. The Swiss bid *did* include more than one location, but the other possibilities were clearly mentioned as "backup venue plans"¹. However, the proposed venue was *one*. And I doubt the Latvian team (to whose lead your mail was answered) felt tricked by having several competing sub-bids. Of course, the Latvian team also offered a primary and a backup location². But clearly marking them as such. Still, we had a huge flamefest while considering a backup site. ¹ https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Switzerland/Bid#Backup_Venue_plans ² https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Latvia#Conference_Facilities
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature