On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:10:42PM +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Jonathan (2020.02.18_16:29:34_+0000)
> > I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
> > * Not having a bid committee for that vote
> I don't know how necessary a bid committee has been, since the change
> from DebConf chairs to the DebConf Committee. This is a big enough pool
> of delegated people, that it doesn't seem necessary to create another
> team just for bid evaluation.
according to https://www.debian.org/intro/organization the DebConf Comittee
consists of 5 people while the bid committee during DebConf chairs time usually
had more like 10-12 people.
> Agreed to those (as I also said at the time). I think it was obvious to
> us early on in the DC20 decision process that we'd want to do this
> privately. We should have announced that.
absolutly. I still dont think it was right to have this decission in private,
but at least announcing it earlier would have been better.
(I do think having the decission in private was neccessary because else the
decission would not have been made that way. But I might be wrong on that.)
> In DC21, we've ended up somewhere near there for different reasons:
>
> The bids weren't ready for voting yet, at the first or second review
> meeting, all the teams went off with issues to address, after both.
>
> If they'd all been ready, or there was a stand-out bid that was, they
> could have been voted on, there and then.
>
> They're now at the point where we can make a selection.
even if they were not ready at the 2nd review meeting, I dont understand why you
dont have a 3rd review meeting and instead now think it's need to decide this
in private again.
can you explain?
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature