Hello again, On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:38:57PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> [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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
