Hi everyone! please look at http://wiki.debian.org/DebConfLocationCheckList. Feel free to expand on it or mail to this list about changing priorities of the questions. (I set the priorities based on my own best judgement, and you may have other ideas about priorities, so we should find out how to aligne them. )
this list brings up a problem, however. while it might be possible to fill it in in a reasonable quick fashion once you have all the answers, GETTING those answers is everything but trivial or quick. So we arrived at the point where filling in the checklist takes allmost as long as organizing debconf itself. It reminds me of the NM process in the way how we solved a problem by throwing beauracracy at it. But: - we WANT people to act as the local team for our Confs, and should try not to turn them away ahead of time. - there MUST be a good deal of trust between the international and the local team, and we can not ensure success by double checking and supervising the local team in a fashist fashion. - the partly negative experiences of the last debconf should not be our only measure. there were several debconfs that went better from the organizers point of view. erecting barriers now is an overreaction. so we need to find a healthy ballance. We need to help carry over the experience we collected to the coming years´ local teams in a friendly and cooperative fashion. The checklist should be just that: a checklist for the local team and us. i suggest we use the higher priority questions (and perhaps even other ones from the list) for picking the venue and backup venue. what do you guys think? what do the people from Edinburgh and Sarajevo think (who are on the receiving end of the checklist)? Please comment. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
