On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote: > I'm (very much) fine with this. (Though I notice there is no explicit > topic "global team / interested people ask the bids questions" - I think > there should be one, even if short, and even if the time for asking question > has been the last three month. But maybe a short topic? Or maybe not.
Good point. I didn't say so in my post, but I envisaged these questions during the priority list run-through, to ask about specific relevant aspects. (And perhaps by being asked on a discussion channel first, then taken over in turn to the main channel, if it's thought that voicing everyone on the main channel will lead to too much confusion.) > And here I disagree. Let me explain: I think we should find a decision on the > 22nd, but I also think we don't have to, if things are not clear enough yet. I agree with this, except that I would prefer to put stronger "if we definitely really need it" wording around the chance of a second meeting. I know that the bid teams have been waiting for a long time already, so we shouldn't delay things longer, now at the last moment, without good reason. > Thinking about this, I also notice now, that the agenda has no "timeline", > while usually we aim for having a meeting in an hour. I dont think one hour > is realistic for this meeting, but I dont want to decide in 5min at the end > of a three hour meeting neither. Right, a timeline was mentioned on the list discussion previously but we never came up with a specific one. The timeframe you suggest looks broadly sensible, except for two points: - I really hope that the bid teams have the materials ready in advance (as already requested), so the "describe" points become posting a single link then waiting for people to read them. If the bid teams are prepared, as requested, it could be better to post all these answers quickly then have a single delay until people have read them and are ready to continue. (Preferably, the bid teams would post them before the meeting, so there would be no delay.) - If we're having a cut-off time, I would suggest that there's some buffer period on that (the cut-off length is more than the planned time), so that we don't just go "oops, it's two hours now? stop immediately" when we could have been done in 2 minutes more. In the timeframe you posted, if we used the individual time limit for each item we would cut off the meeting before a decision, so the individual times should be less or the overall time greater. -- Moray _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
