Hi Holger, As I just told you on IRC, I refrained from posting because I mistakenly understood your request to comment between us rather than on the list as a request to wait for some further information or opinion from you... And I carried on with $otherstuff. As you now requested explicit answers on-list, I continue...
I do not like many things about LeCamp. But, right now, I don't see we are in a position to start again looking for a better place. Not only because all of the hostility already shown, but also because we would be working without a local team. We already, explicitly, gave our trust to the Swiss team. They are a great team. we accepted their (again, explicit) proposal to have a "different" DebConf. The "small place in the middle of nowhere" issue didn't sneak behind our backs — We knew about it and accepted it since the very country choosing meeting. Although many things were really less known, it cannot be seen as a surprise to us. During this last week's discussion, we have seen quite a bit of repetitive shit slinging. Most of what has been said has already been said by other people. Yes, there are some new data points (i.e. the low bathroom to attendee ratio, the sleeping bag ratio), but it's not something out of line with what we should expect from this venue. We have been told several times that LeCamp's main business are primary schools and the like. Some people won't want to attend to a camplike DebConf. It will surely lower the amount of participants. As I have reiterated, I am completely cool with it — We cannot pretend to cater for everybody. Some people have expressed to me their very concrete worries in this regard... Well, as an extra data point, if we were to choose a perfect venue where >500 people fit and everybody wants to be there, I would not be happy and I am sure I'd feel it as a minor loss as well — Because an important part of DebConf in my eyes is its scale, still creating a closely-knit community feeling. Growing much more beyond our usual borders is not something I would personally like. No, I would of course not boycott said ideal place — Only I would not feel one of the long-standing, defining characterstics of DebConf would be compromised. I got somewhat worried about this when we faced the "only 325 beds‽" point. I know that an uncomfortable, unhygienic DebConf will be a put-off for many, and... that will manage to get probably a different (smellier?) subset of Debian than our usual distribution. What can I say? Regarding the point at hand, the precise contract signing: I am for it. I was very happy we reached a decision that allowed us to be financially responsible. Now, I saw the prices, but –as the contract will basically be just a shortened version of what we had– I still don't know whether a time extension (for part or all of the other week), with partial or full usage of the buildings, is still on the table. I would have it as an important point to check.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
