On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:03:46PM +0000, Moray Allan wrote: > > - "A decision is made." sums up my main issue quite well -- it's not > > specified who takes the decision and how it's taken. > > This is a clear flaw in the current process. In the past when the > answer has not been clear (no consensus), it has finally come down to > letting a few people take the decision. It would be preferable to > agree in advance who that group is to be. Even in years when there > has been apparent consensus, there has been some embarrassment in > knowing who should halt the discussion and announce a winner.
I agree with gregor that consensus doesn't seem to work that well in
deciding the venue. I've noticed that there have been not-so-good
feelings about venue decision in past years. Obviously there is *always*
someone which is not going to be happy about a venue decision, but the
widespread lack of knowledge on who/how decides is not helping.
> The obvious resolution would be to give an appropriate group an
> official DPL delegation for choosing the venue. As delegates they
> should still follow the precedent of looking for consensus, but a
> delegation would add clarity over who has the power to make a final
> decision.
I was going to mention this as well, but you beat me at it. FWIW, my
argument would have been something like: "given that my memories of the
DebConf meeting are that there is some consensus in having a more
formalized relationship between Debian and DebConf organization (in the
form of DPL delegations) it makes sense to have as final responsibles
for the decision those delegates".
Of course, there is a big "if" in that argument about whether we
actually agree on delegating DebConf organizers, which I believe it's
something you (as in Moray) were going to bring up at some point.
Note: the proposal that delegates are responsible for the final
decision, does not mean that they are the only one who vote. For
instance, they might decide on who is entitled to vote and who is
not. My DebConf organization experience being very limited, I've the
impression that that would match existing customs from at least some
DebConf areas, where ad-hoc teams were formed (e.g. talk selection) and
asked to vote.
Assuming we go through that, we should also clearly recommend (or
impose?) that people involved in specific bids should abstain from
voting.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
