Hi, On Sonntag, 20. März 2011, Moray Allan wrote: > As said elsewhere, it should come down (at worst) to a non-private > vote using Debian's standard procedures.
I'm not sure you are referred to this, but I consider the irc meeting where I
brought this up sarcastically as one of the worsts moments of future debconf
venue decision meetings.
But yes, I agree with what you wrote here. At worst it will come down to
voting, and why not use Debian standard procedures for this.
But I think the decision process should define this as a *last* measure, when
consensus cannot be found. And the emphasis should be how to find consensus,
ie. by defining the criterias a venue must fulfill and the relative
importance of each point (ie network quality is more important than available
sports activities).
Also, I rather prefer to here in more detail why $person prefers this bid,
than just seeing "+1 for bid c"
> Beyond that, I don't think we can really define precisely how people
> should decide their votes: if we can come up with clear agreed
> criteria, those criteria should already be used in the stage where we
> try to reach a decision by consensus. So if things reach a vote, it's
> because whatever criteria we had thought of already turned out not to
> be clear enough. The point of the vote is then to make a decision
> between the different interpretations of our criteria.
Agreed.
> We already tried in the past to go to the extreme of clearly defined
> criteria, ordered weighted options, and numerical scores for each
> point, but that didn't really solve any problems, and made some of the
> arguments worse, as teams felt they had to argue about the precise
> numerical scores or about the precise weighting of different points.
> If the bids are close, this doesn't really get us anywhere though, as
> we've shown we *can't* agree on this precise level (and if they're not
> close, it's a waste of time).
As well.
> Instead I argue we should discuss the priority list points more
> informally, seeing what is good and bad, then openly discuss people's
> thoughts on the bids' overall merits, trying to reach consensus as in
> past years. Then, as in past years, we may need a vote, but now that
> possibility is defined in advance, rather than us making up the
> procedure as we go along.
Also. It just took me three times reading to see that voting is not "the usual
way" as described in this very paragraph. I fear that if we leave the
wording / emphasis like this, in three years voting _will_ be the default
procedure and seeking consensus (and not voting at all) will be
forgotten. "here, we have a tool, so we always use it".
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
