Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Hi all,

Le mercredi, 10 février 2016, 13.42:35 Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
> Holger Levsen dijo [Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:01:47AM +0100]:
> > So far, February 17th looks like a date I would pick.
> 
> The meeting shall take plae on Wednesday 17, 18:30.
> 
> People from both bidding teams, *please confirm* you can attend at
> that time. If you cannot, please state if you can attend 1hr later
> (19:30). If that's not doable, come up with a second-best proposal
> based on the Dudle.

I hereby confirm I'm fine with Wed 17. 18:30 or 19:30 UTC.

Just to confirm, Gunnar, you intend this meeting to be the _decision_ 
meeting, right?

Cheers,
OdyX
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Gunnar Wolf]

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:47:07PM +0100]:
> > The meeting shall take plae on Wednesday 17, 18:30.
> > 
> > People from both bidding teams, *please confirm* you can attend at
> > that time. If you cannot, please state if you can attend 1hr later
> > (19:30). If that's not doable, come up with a second-best proposal
> > based on the Dudle.
> 
> I hereby confirm I'm fine with Wed 17. 18:30 or 19:30 UTC.
> 
> Just to confirm, Gunnar, you intend this meeting to be the _decision_ 
> meeting, right?

I don't know. And FWIW, it's not my call to make; IIRC we have not
"formally" agreed we would skip some steps. I am not feeling rushed,
nor do I feel the teams feel so (but my sampling is of a very low
quality and frequency :-P ).

I am OK with meeting to talk about the venues' strengths and
shortcomings, and come up with a decision on a second round. I would
also most welcome an obvious decision, if one of the teams does feel
*very* far ahead of the second. But it's not my call to make, I'll go
with whatever the dominant sentiment among the committee is.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Neil McGovern]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:42:35PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> - The meeting is not supposed to be long, but a scheme limited to 1hr
>   can be less than ideal (as Neil cannot attend Thursday >19:30)

If it's better, I can re-arrange some stuff for the Thursday, but that
may just be complicating things now.

> The meeting shall take plae on Wednesday 17, 18:30.
> 

Ack :)

Neil


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Gunnar Wolf]

Holger Levsen dijo [Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:01:47AM +0100]:
> so far only 6 people have voted in this dudle poll - so if you haven't please 
> vote now.
> 
> That said, I'm a bit unsure about the timing, as I think such a meeting needs 
> at least 7 days warning in advance, which already invalidates some available 
> dates from that poll and will invalidate more every day noone calls for a 
> meeting.
> 
> So far, February 17th looks like a date I would pick.

One more person voted. And yes, time is passing by quickly. And
whatever we choose, only the Committee has voted — we have not heard a
word from either the Prague or the Montreal groups.

So I'll push this forward, as somebody needs to do it. Given that:

- No date yields seven positive votes, or six positive and one
  abstention at least (Thu18 is either bad for Holger or for Neil, and
  besides that day, Didier's schedule is incompatible with Moray's,
  and Holger's is unknown)

- I agree with the "no less than 7 days warning" that Holger mentions

- The meeting is not supposed to be long, but a scheme limited to 1hr
  can be less than ideal (as Neil cannot attend Thursday >19:30)

The meeting shall take plae on Wednesday 17, 18:30.

People from both bidding teams, *please confirm* you can attend at
that time. If you cannot, please state if you can attend 1hr later
(19:30). If that's not doable, come up with a second-best proposal
based on the Dudle.

Of course, both bidding teams: Please do confirm whether you are still
running :)

So, see you next week!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Gunnar Wolf]

Sorry for the noise - 18:30UTC.

12:30 Mexico, 13:30 Montreal, 14:30 Nova Scotia, 18:30 UK, 19:30 most
of Europe (including Prague), 20:30 South Africa. Did I miss any of
you? :)
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau]

On 2016-02-10 14:42, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> People from both bidding teams, *please confirm* you can attend at
> that time.

We just talked about it on our IRC channel and a few of us can make it
so it should be fine for us.

> 
> Of course, both bidding teams: Please do confirm whether you are still
> running :)

GO MONTRÉEALL!!! (we're still running, yes)

--
pollo




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee ⇒ 2016.02.17 18:30

[Richard Hartmann]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Gunnar Wolf  wrote:

> One more person voted. And yes, time is passing by quickly. And
> whatever we choose, only the Committee has voted — we have not heard a
> word from either the Prague or the Montreal groups.

Ugh, I didn't put in any time... sorry...


> The meeting shall take plae on Wednesday 17, 18:30.

Works for me, I will attend.


Richard
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Sonntag, 24. Januar 2016, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Dear DebConf Team, dear DebConf Committee, dear DPL,
> 
> I consider the DebConf Committee to be validly formed, with this page as
> reference:
>   https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf_Committee
> 
> The 7 persons from the 'Confirmed for the DC17 decision' list have
> acknowledged my request for confirmation, and are hereby BCC'ed.
> 
> > Please be aware that the DebConf17 bids deadline has now passed and
> > that there are two bidders:
> > 
> > - Prague - https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17/Bids/Prague
> > - Montreal - https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17/Bids/Montreal
> 
> As it is now apparent, I failed to call for any DebConf Committee
> meetings. Sorry for that. The next thing for the DebConf Committee is to
> to hold a "Bid status meeting", with representatives from the two bids
> [0].
> 
> As I'm VAC from now on until Feb 12, I see two ways forward here: a) I
> propose a date for when I'm back, and we build up from there; b) someone
> takes over (which would be fine), and finds a date before then. Let's
> first try to find a date:
> 
>   https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/DebConf17-BidStatusMeeting/
> 
> DebConf Committee members, please fill the poll before the end of
> January. Anyone of you, please take over the date agreement and meeting
> organization, as I won't be able to. :)

so far only 6 people have voted in this dudle poll - so if you haven't please 
vote now.

That said, I'm a bit unsure about the timing, as I think such a meeting needs 
at least 7 days warning in advance, which already invalidates some available 
dates from that poll and will invalidate more every day noone calls for a 
meeting.

So far, February 17th looks like a date I would pick.

Please dudle now.


cheers,
Holger



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gunnar Wolf]

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 05:13:46PM +0100]:
> Dear DebConf Team, dear DebConf Committee, dear DPL,
> 
> I consider the DebConf Committee to be validly formed, with this page as 
> reference:
>   https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf_Committee
> 
> The 7 persons from the 'Confirmed for the DC17 decision' list have 
> acknowledged my request for confirmation, and are hereby BCC'ed.

Yay \o/

As one of the Bcc:ed people (I don't think there's any need for
secrecy here), I'm eager to find who else is part of the Committee,
and to start working to get this decision over and set the work
going. I voiced my concerns about this, but given the DPL is in the
loop (and appears to be active in the topic as well — Hi Neil!), I am
happy to see things are moving.

> (...)
> DebConf Committee members, please fill the poll before the end of 
> January. Anyone of you, please take over the date agreement and meeting 
> organization, as I won't be able to. :)

I failed to register in the Dudle before the end of January, but just
did it (on Feb 2). But much to my dismay, I was not the only person in
the Committee missing — I was just the third (plus our DPL, I
guess). So please, fellow Committee members, *do* take action. I do
not think we will manage to hold the meeting before Didier returns,
but nevertheless it seems we will not find a time where all of us can
be present. Well, things that happen, we will manage with the most
possible people, if not all.

Please get your act together and register when you can hold the
meeting.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gunnar Wolf]

martin f krafft dijo [Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:48:26AM +1300]:
> also sprach Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  [2016-01-27 03:56 +1300]:
> > > I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But
> > > if there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid
> > > Decision Meeting, that works for me too!
> >
> > As far as I can remember this was a tragic experience.
> 
> It was made tragic by some, yes. It came quite as a surprise to most
> that we even had to have a second meeting in the last two years.

I stick with the "popular" choice here, I think having an extra
meeting is not too hard a burden on any of us.

> > If a meeting before the decision meeting has no many points to
> > discuss, then it will be quick and no precious time from committee
> > will be spent.
> 
> If we have the necessary discipline to do this, then sure, having
> a point of synchronisation is never wrong. Still, questions and team
> introductions should probably still happen on the mailing list
> before the meeting, don't you think?
>
> And it should go without saying that all committee members are
> familiar with the bids and the mailing list discussions by the time
> the meeting commences.

YES YES YES.

Here I completely agree with you. We as committee should get engaged
with the bidding teams, and the teams should also be familiar with
each other's offer's main points.

> Let's try not to enslave us to protocols too much. Several times in
> the past and especially in the last two years, a bid decision could
> have been made during (or even before) the status meeting, but we
> shunned it for the sake of sticking to "the procedure". Of course
> it's important to be fair to all teams, but let's not ignore the
> signs and rule out the possibility to fast-track the decision when
> it's quite clear that not much will change in the two weeks between
> meetings.

...Or at least, make sure the bidders do know about this, that it's
not a surprise for them.

> An earlier decision and one less meeting puts the winning team on
> track faster, and wastes less time of the committee and the other
> teams, who should be encouraged to try again next year. Sometimes it
> might even make sense to cast a decision for the next two years!

A two week slip in the decision to start planning for something to be
organized in a ~18month time... should be hurt-less!
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Moray Allan]

On 2016-01-24 17:23, martin f krafft wrote:

The wiki lists three purposes for this meeting:

  1. Introductions from teams and their members.

  2. Questions from teams about the process, and about what others
 suggest they try to do on any uncertain aspects or potential
 problems.

  3. Questions to teams, if there are still unanswered issues.

Do we really need a meeting for any of these?


Ideally everything could be sorted out on the list (plus IRC), then only 
one meeting would be required.  But past experience suggests that some 
bid teams and others, including even Committee members, do not become 
fully engaged until the first meeting happens.  Skipping the status 
meeting then led to more meta-arguments (e.g. requests for delays while 
additional information was sought) in the decision meeting.


For this year, the low number of questions/comments on the list (and 
main IRC channels) so far doesn't fill me with confidence that everyone 
has already fully engaged with the bid process.


Moray
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Tiago Bortoletto Vaz]

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 07:02:24PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Martin, hi all,
> > 
> > Are there any reasons for why we couldn't all read the wiki pages
> > (again), engage in a bit more dialogue on the list and simply call
> > for a final decision meeting in the near future, e.g. right after
> > you get back from your trip? Everyone's time is limited (including
> > that of the bid teams).
> 
> I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But if 
> there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid Decision 
> Meeting, that works for me too!

As far as I can remember this was a tragic experience.

If a meeting before the decision meeting has no many points to discuss,
then it will be quick and no precious time from committee will be spent.
But I'm certain it worths keeping it, just to give people the chance to
be surprised. And to avoid flaming about the need of having or not
another meeting.

Bests,

-- 
tiago
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 07:02:24PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Hi Martin, hi all,
>> > 
>> > Are there any reasons for why we couldn't all read the wiki pages
>> > (again), engage in a bit more dialogue on the list and simply call
>> > for a final decision meeting in the near future, e.g. right after
>> > you get back from your trip? Everyone's time is limited (including
>> > that of the bid teams).
>> 
>> I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But if 
>> there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid Decision 
>> Meeting, that works for me too!
>
> As far as I can remember this was a tragic experience.
>
> If a meeting before the decision meeting has no many points to discuss,
> then it will be quick and no precious time from committee will be spent.
> But I'm certain it worths keeping it, just to give people the chance to
> be surprised. And to avoid flaming about the need of having or not
> another meeting.

I tend to agree with Tiago here. While it's certainly prefered if as
many questions are asked and hopefully answered before the meeting the
first meeting has real value to the comittee members as it's the first
time they discuss the different alternatives. Having a second meeting
guarantees that the decision is not rushed.

Gaudenz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 07:02:24PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Hi Martin, hi all,
>> > 
>> > Are there any reasons for why we couldn't all read the wiki pages
>> > (again), engage in a bit more dialogue on the list and simply call
>> > for a final decision meeting in the near future, e.g. right after
>> > you get back from your trip? Everyone's time is limited (including
>> > that of the bid teams).
>> 
>> I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But if 
>> there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid Decision 
>> Meeting, that works for me too!
>
> As far as I can remember this was a tragic experience.
>
> If a meeting before the decision meeting has no many points to discuss,
> then it will be quick and no precious time from committee will be spent.
> But I'm certain it worths keeping it, just to give people the chance to
> be surprised. And to avoid flaming about the need of having or not
> another meeting.

I tend to agree with Tiago here. While it's certainly prefered if as
many questions are asked and hopefully answered before the meeting the
first meeting has real value to the comittee members as it's the first
time they discuss the different alternatives. Having a second meeting
guarantees that the decision is not rushed.

Gaudenz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  [2016-01-27 03:56 +1300]:
> > I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But
> > if there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid
> > Decision Meeting, that works for me too!
>
> As far as I can remember this was a tragic experience.

It was made tragic by some, yes. It came quite as a surprise to most
that we even had to have a second meeting in the last two years.

> If a meeting before the decision meeting has no many points to
> discuss, then it will be quick and no precious time from committee
> will be spent.

If we have the necessary discipline to do this, then sure, having
a point of synchronisation is never wrong. Still, questions and team
introductions should probably still happen on the mailing list
before the meeting, don't you think?

And it should go without saying that all committee members are
familiar with the bids and the mailing list discussions by the time
the meeting commences.

Let's try not to enslave us to protocols too much. Several times in
the past and especially in the last two years, a bid decision could
have been made during (or even before) the status meeting, but we
shunned it for the sake of sticking to "the procedure". Of course
it's important to be fair to all teams, but let's not ignore the
signs and rule out the possibility to fast-track the decision when
it's quite clear that not much will change in the two weeks between
meetings.

An earlier decision and one less meeting puts the winning team on
track faster, and wastes less time of the committee and the other
teams, who should be encouraged to try again next year. Sometimes it
might even make sense to cast a decision for the next two years!

Keep in mind: the committee's decision is a guess at who'll be able
to pull off a good conference. It's not a guarantee for a good
conference, and we should not treat it as the holy grail. As always,
a decision made earlier is better than taking too long to make
a perfect decision. Once a decision is made, bid plans turn into
a concrete, tangible challenge and eventually into a successful
conference…

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  DebConf orga team
`. `'`
  `-  DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16
  DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Tiago Bortoletto Vaz]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:48:26AM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Tiago Bortoletto Vaz  [2016-01-27 03:56 +1300]:
> > > I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But
> > > if there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid
> > > Decision Meeting, that works for me too!
> >
> > As far as I can remember this was a tragic experience.
> 
> It was made tragic by some, yes. It came quite as a surprise to most
> that we even had to have a second meeting in the last two years.
> 
> > If a meeting before the decision meeting has no many points to
> > discuss, then it will be quick and no precious time from committee
> > will be spent.
> 
> If we have the necessary discipline to do this, then sure, having
> a point of synchronisation is never wrong. Still, questions and team
> introductions should probably still happen on the mailing list
> before the meeting, don't you think?

Yes, I think. But that never happens.

> And it should go without saying that all committee members are
> familiar with the bids and the mailing list discussions by the time
> the meeting commences.

> Let's try not to enslave us to protocols too much. Several times in
> the past and especially in the last two years, a bid decision could
> have been made during (or even before) the status meeting, but we
> shunned it for the sake of sticking to "the procedure". Of course
> it's important to be fair to all teams, but let's not ignore the
> signs and rule out the possibility to fast-track the decision when
> it's quite clear that not much will change in the two weeks between
> meetings.
> 
> An earlier decision and one less meeting puts the winning team on
> track faster, and wastes less time of the committee and the other
> teams, who should be encouraged to try again next year. Sometimes it
> might even make sense to cast a decision for the next two years!
> 
> Keep in mind: the committee's decision is a guess at who'll be able
> to pull off a good conference. It's not a guarantee for a good
> conference, and we should not treat it as the holy grail. As always,
> a decision made earlier is better than taking too long to make
> a perfect decision. Once a decision is made, bid plans turn into
> a concrete, tangible challenge and eventually into a successful
> conference…

If I write two more emails on this thread I'll be spending more time
than joining a bid status meeting. So it doesn't make any sense to keep
arguing. My opinion remains the same. The committe decides.

Bests,

-- 
tiago
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Dear DebConf Team, dear DebConf Committee, dear DPL,

I consider the DebConf Committee to be validly formed, with this page as 
reference:
https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf_Committee

The 7 persons from the 'Confirmed for the DC17 decision' list have 
acknowledged my request for confirmation, and are hereby BCC'ed.

> Please be aware that the DebConf17 bids deadline has now passed and
> that there are two bidders:
> 
> - Prague - https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17/Bids/Prague
> - Montreal - https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17/Bids/Montreal

As it is now apparent, I failed to call for any DebConf Committee 
meetings. Sorry for that. The next thing for the DebConf Committee is to 
to hold a "Bid status meeting", with representatives from the two bids 
[0].

As I'm VAC from now on until Feb 12, I see two ways forward here: a) I 
propose a date for when I'm back, and we build up from there; b) someone 
takes over (which would be fine), and finds a date before then. Let's 
first try to find a date:

https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/DebConf17-BidStatusMeeting/

DebConf Committee members, please fill the poll before the end of 
January. Anyone of you, please take over the date agreement and meeting 
organization, as I won't be able to. :)

--
Cheers, and see you in February,

OdyX

[0] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Bid_process#Venue_decision

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[martin f krafft]

Hi Didier,

I know how busy you are with the other new responsibilities you've
recently took on. Thanks a lot for taking on this onorous task and
re-forming the committee.

As you know, I am not involved in the DC17 decision process, even
though I sent the reminder to the teams in November. But I am
obviously following closely and with great interest, and I do wonder
about the bid status meeting you propose.

Is this really necessary, especially given the experience from the
last years? It sounds like it's going to bind peoplepower and delay
the decision, while the benefit of the meeting is unclear.

The wiki lists three purposes for this meeting:

  1. Introductions from teams and their members.

  2. Questions from teams about the process, and about what others
 suggest they try to do on any uncertain aspects or potential
 problems.

  3. Questions to teams, if there are still unanswered issues.

Do we really need a meeting for any of these?

The teams present themselves on the wiki and the key
people have been around the channels for a while. What further
introductions are we seeking? Is an IRC meeting the best forum for
this? Wouldn't an e-mail or a series of e-mails, or some more
information on the wiki create much better information?

We've had a number of questions about the process by team members,
both on the list (I think), and on the channels. Is there any reason
why we shouldn't encourage them to come forth with the last
remaining open questions (if there are any…) to the mailing list?

Are there still questions to the teams that haven't been thrown on
the list in the last 7 weeks?


Are there any reasons for why we couldn't all read the wiki pages
(again), engage in a bit more dialogue on the list and simply call
for a final decision meeting in the near future, e.g. right after
you get back from your trip? Everyone's time is limited (including
that of the bid teams).

Thanks for your consideration,

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft  @martinkrafft
: :'  :  DebConf orga team
`. `'`
  `-  DebConf16: Cape Town: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf16
  DebConf17 in your country? https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Hi Martin, hi all,

Le lundi, 25 janvier 2016, 06.23:44 martin f krafft a écrit :
> As you know, I am not involved in the DC17 decision process, even
> though I sent the reminder to the teams in November. But I am
> obviously following closely and with great interest, and I do wonder
> about the bid status meeting you propose.
> 
> Is this really necessary, especially given the experience from the
> last years? It sounds like it's going to bind peoplepower and delay
> the decision, while the benefit of the meeting is unclear.

That's a fair point.

> The wiki lists three purposes for this meeting:
> 
>   1. Introductions from teams and their members.
> 
>   2. Questions from teams about the process, and about what others
>  suggest they try to do on any uncertain aspects or potential
>  problems.
> 
>   3. Questions to teams, if there are still unanswered issues.
> 
> Do we really need a meeting for any of these?
> 
> (…)
> 
> Are there any reasons for why we couldn't all read the wiki pages
> (again), engage in a bit more dialogue on the list and simply call
> for a final decision meeting in the near future, e.g. right after
> you get back from your trip? Everyone's time is limited (including
> that of the bid teams).

I was trying to not diverge too much away from the process. But if 
there's no strong objection to skipping directly to the Bid Decision 
Meeting, that works for me too!

Let's use the poll to find out a possible meeting date. As long as a 
good part of the Committee as well as representatives from the two bid 
teams can be present, we can certainly get to agree to make it the 
Decision Meeting. Let's just take this decision way before the actual 
meeting, for clarity, eh…

-- 
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gunnar Wolf]

Daniel Pocock dijo [Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 06:29:51PM +0100]:
> On 20/12/15 18:18, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 12/19/2015 01:09 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> On 18/12/15 14:48, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> >>(...)
> >> Freezing the decision process may also be a practical way of emphasizing
> >> to the wider community that DebConf would welcome more contributions.
> > Our blocker right now isn't really the wider Debian community, so this
> > isn't putting pressure on the right point. The best approach may be to
> > say that the DPL is acting DebConf chair until he puts a new delegation
> > in place. That both gives us an established authority figure to slot in
> > place for immediate needs, and also encourages him to hurry up on
> > forming the delegation, so he doesn't have to spend the time on
> > day-to-day DebConf management.
> 
> The chairs resigned citing very specific issues with DebConf
> organization.  Simply proceeding without any chairs may also be a little
> disrespectful to that final decision of the chairs.
> 
> That said, you are right about the DPL's involvement.  If the DPL was
> fulfilling the role of the chairs in the meeting or if he simply gives
> the DebConf committee a green light to go ahead without chairs or with
> somebody appointed chair on an interim basis then it would certainly
> make the process more robust.  I'm not stating any opinion on whether he
> should or shouldn't do either of those things, but if other people want
> to ask him, I hope it helps.

I agree with Daniel and Allison here. Now, this message has been
sitting for around two weeks. I believe that, given the lack of
delegates, their powers revert to the DPL - I agree, he has not been
expressly "summoned" to this thread, so I'm hereby doing so. But yes,
we have been expecting interaction from the DPL for far longer than
that.

So, please, Neil, what would be your stand on the current situation
and upcoming tasks for DebConf? How should this proceed? Can we
consider you a part of the Committee for the upcoming decision?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Allison Randal]

On 12/19/2015 01:09 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/12/15 14:48, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>
>> Given the general "DebConf Team" situation, I would really like us to 
>> focus on using the existing structures for what they got built, rather 
>> than having meta-discussions, which will only delay the DC17 decision. I 
>> don't see value in postponing the DC17 decision until after the DebConf 
>> governance tensions have been relaxed.

Yes, I agree, focusing on the practicalities and keeping things running
is the best way through this. Where we have existing structure, let's
keep using it. Where we don't, fill in as needed.

> I feel there is a real danger that if this is done without the new
> chairs, then some people may not volunteer to participate as a chair at
> all, feeling that a significant decision has already been made without
> them and now they are just being roped in to implement it.

Hmmm... anyone petty enough to turn up their nose because we ran ahead
with practical decisions when the sky fell down, really isn't someone I
want as chair anyway.

> Freezing the decision process may also be a practical way of emphasizing
> to the wider community that DebConf would welcome more contributions.

Our blocker right now isn't really the wider Debian community, so this
isn't putting pressure on the right point. The best approach may be to
say that the DPL is acting DebConf chair until he puts a new delegation
in place. That both gives us an established authority figure to slot in
place for immediate needs, and also encourages him to hurry up on
forming the delegation, so he doesn't have to spend the time on
day-to-day DebConf management.

Allison
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Daniel Pocock]

On 20/12/15 18:18, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 01:09 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> On 18/12/15 14:48, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>> Given the general "DebConf Team" situation, I would really like us to 
>>> focus on using the existing structures for what they got built, rather 
>>> than having meta-discussions, which will only delay the DC17 decision. I 
>>> don't see value in postponing the DC17 decision until after the DebConf 
>>> governance tensions have been relaxed.
> Yes, I agree, focusing on the practicalities and keeping things running
> is the best way through this. Where we have existing structure, let's
> keep using it. Where we don't, fill in as needed.
>
>> I feel there is a real danger that if this is done without the new
>> chairs, then some people may not volunteer to participate as a chair at
>> all, feeling that a significant decision has already been made without
>> them and now they are just being roped in to implement it.
> Hmmm... anyone petty enough to turn up their nose because we ran ahead
> with practical decisions when the sky fell down, really isn't someone I
> want as chair anyway.
>
>> Freezing the decision process may also be a practical way of emphasizing
>> to the wider community that DebConf would welcome more contributions.
> Our blocker right now isn't really the wider Debian community, so this
> isn't putting pressure on the right point. The best approach may be to
> say that the DPL is acting DebConf chair until he puts a new delegation
> in place. That both gives us an established authority figure to slot in
> place for immediate needs, and also encourages him to hurry up on
> forming the delegation, so he doesn't have to spend the time on
> day-to-day DebConf management.

The chairs resigned citing very specific issues with DebConf
organization.  Simply proceeding without any chairs may also be a little
disrespectful to that final decision of the chairs.

That said, you are right about the DPL's involvement.  If the DPL was
fulfilling the role of the chairs in the meeting or if he simply gives
the DebConf committee a green light to go ahead without chairs or with
somebody appointed chair on an interim basis then it would certainly
make the process more robust.  I'm not stating any opinion on whether he
should or shouldn't do either of those things, but if other people want
to ask him, I hope it helps.

Regards,

Daniel

___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Daniel Pocock]

On 18/12/15 14:48, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 17 décembre 2015, 12.49:32 Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
>> As Didier said already replying to Steve, I am among the people
>> responding "yes" to the call. There is one bit that I do feel
>> important: We can reach a consensus as to which bid is more apt in our
>> eyes, but formally, we don't have a delegated body to make things
>> formal.
> 
> I think we can act according to the pre-existing rules, and that we 
> should.
> 
> From https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Bid_process#Venue_decision:
>> The DebConf Committee is made up of the delegated DebConf chairs and
>> additional members recruited by the Chairs from those with a long-term
>> interest in helping organise DebConf.
> 
> Without delegated DebConf chairs, this boils down to "additional members 
> recruited by the Chairs". By checking with the actual members of the 
> DebConf Committee (as recruited by past Chairs), we only shrink it, and 
> don't engage in actual recruitement [0].
> 
> Given the general "DebConf Team" situation, I would really like us to 
> focus on using the existing structures for what they got built, rather 
> than having meta-discussions, which will only delay the DC17 decision. I 
> don't see value in postponing the DC17 decision until after the DebConf 
> governance tensions have been relaxed.
> 


As the introduction says on that wiki "Modifications to this process
should be agreed with the competing bid teams"

In principle, this would suggest that the bid teams should have some say
in whether it goes ahead without the chairs, given it is such a
significant decision.

A more pedantic argument may be that without any delegation, there is no
DebConf committee.  A softer version of this argument may be that the
committee is in caretaker mode, only making essential decisions to avoid
DC16 unraveling.

I feel there is a real danger that if this is done without the new
chairs, then some people may not volunteer to participate as a chair at
all, feeling that a significant decision has already been made without
them and now they are just being roped in to implement it.

Freezing the decision process may also be a practical way of emphasizing
to the wider community that DebConf would welcome more contributions.

Regards,

Daniel
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 17 décembre 2015, 12.49:32 Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
> As Didier said already replying to Steve, I am among the people
> responding "yes" to the call. There is one bit that I do feel
> important: We can reach a consensus as to which bid is more apt in our
> eyes, but formally, we don't have a delegated body to make things
> formal.

I think we can act according to the pre-existing rules, and that we 
should.

From https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Bid_process#Venue_decision:
> The DebConf Committee is made up of the delegated DebConf chairs and
> additional members recruited by the Chairs from those with a long-term
> interest in helping organise DebConf.

Without delegated DebConf chairs, this boils down to "additional members 
recruited by the Chairs". By checking with the actual members of the 
DebConf Committee (as recruited by past Chairs), we only shrink it, and 
don't engage in actual recruitement [0].

Given the general "DebConf Team" situation, I would really like us to 
focus on using the existing structures for what they got built, rather 
than having meta-discussions, which will only delay the DC17 decision. I 
don't see value in postponing the DC17 decision until after the DebConf 
governance tensions have been relaxed.

Cheers,
OdyX

[0] As I said already; my own position is somewhat weird, as I had 
previously resigned (genuinely forgot that facṫ…) I'm happy to step back 
if that action improves the wider situation, really.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le mercredi, 16 décembre 2015, 13.45:15 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:07:22PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > As announced in [1], I have now contacted all "Current members" from
> > [0] to check whether they would keep serving on the DebConf
> > Committee. I hope to hear from them all before the end of the year
> > [2].
> > 
> > [0] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf_Committee
> 
> FWIW this wiki page doesn't appear to be up to date.
> 
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150117.113051.3a9f78b3.en.html

Thank you for the heads' up. It's very sad that this didn't make it to 
the wiki… Damn. I'm very sorry for the unclarity then.

So. In the interest of full transparency there, here's the list of folks 
I had initially contacted (from the wiki page):

- Andrew McMillan
- Guido Trotter
- Gunnar Wolf
- Holger Levsen
- Margarita Manterola
- Martín Ferrari
- Moray Allan
- Philipp Hug
- Raphaël Walther
- Tássia Camões

Given the above mail, I have now contacted:

- Richard Hartmann
- René Mayorga
- Norman García
- Steve Langasek, given :
> (And Patty was not able to make the decision meetings this year for
> DC16, so re-delegated to me.)

I have updated the DebConf Committee page [0] with the answers I got so 
far.

As Marga wrote in that mail, I had decided to retire (which I totally 
forgot, I'm getting old… ). I'm therefore very happy to step back if 
anyone else from the Committee agrees to act as Commitee secretary in my 
place. I'll be VAC for the next two weeks; that'll need to happen 
anyway.

Cheers,
OdyX

[0] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf_Committee

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gunnar Wolf]

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:07:22PM +0100]:
> Dear DebConf Team,
> 
> Please be aware that the DebConf17 bids deadline has now passed and that 
> there are two bidders:
> (...)
> I suggest to proceed this way: if there are blockers, for the two Bid 
> teams or some DebConf Committee members, please voice them on the list 
> now! We should really be able to decide on these dates before the end of 
> this year (although, given [2], someone else should probably step in to 
> actually decide on the dates).

Hi all,

As Didier said already replying to Steve, I am among the people
responding "yes" to the call. There is one bit that I do feel
important: We can reach a consensus as to which bid is more apt in our
eyes, but formally, we don't have a delegated body to make things
formal. According to the current delegation, the decision must be
taken between the Committee and the Chairs — Which don't currently
exist.

So, we must come up with a decision on that regard.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Richard Hartmann]

Quoting in full on purpose.

Can DPL just tell the committee to do this on its own this once?

Richard

Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
On Dec 17, 2015 19:49, "Gunnar Wolf"  wrote:

> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:07:22PM +0100]:
> > Dear DebConf Team,
> >
> > Please be aware that the DebConf17 bids deadline has now passed and that
> > there are two bidders:
> > (...)
> > I suggest to proceed this way: if there are blockers, for the two Bid
> > teams or some DebConf Committee members, please voice them on the list
> > now! We should really be able to decide on these dates before the end of
> > this year (although, given [2], someone else should probably step in to
> > actually decide on the dates).
>
> Hi all,
>
> As Didier said already replying to Steve, I am among the people
> responding "yes" to the call. There is one bit that I do feel
> important: We can reach a consensus as to which bid is more apt in our
> eyes, but formally, we don't have a delegated body to make things
> formal. According to the current delegation, the decision must be
> taken between the Committee and the Chairs — Which don't currently
> exist.
>
> So, we must come up with a decision on that regard.
>
> ___
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
>
>
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Gunnar Wolf]

Richard Hartmann dijo [Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 07:57:01PM +0100]:
> Quoting in full on purpose.
> 
> Can DPL just tell the committee to do this on its own this once?

That, or put a delegation in place before mid January. Or come up with
a different, sustainable scheme.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf17 bids - DebConf Committee

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:07:22PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> As announced in [1], I have now contacted all "Current members" from [0] 
> to check whether they would keep serving on the DebConf Committee. I 
> hope to hear from them all before the end of the year [2].

> [0] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf_Committee

FWIW this wiki page doesn't appear to be up to date.

http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150117.113051.3a9f78b3.en.html

(And Patty was not able to make the decision meetings this year for DC16, so
re-delegated to me.)

http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2015/debconf-team.2015-01-27-18.59.log.html
http://meetbot.debian.net/debconf-team/2015/debconf-team.2015-02-13-19.01.log.html

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team