On 2012-12-01 00:42, Ana Guerrero wrote:
It is a pity you (or others) didn't raise your concerns strongly back
then.
To tell the truth, I think I was surprised that other people did not
see them as big concerns when they were raised in the venue decision
context.
This year, we're still in time to find a place that is suitable for
more
people. We can not achieve 100% but at least give people choice, even
if some
It does seem to me that hypothetically a venue could be found which
shares the qualities that the people who are enthusiastic about Le Camp
like, while also having alternative accommodation nearby. However, it
was necessary to listen when many locals protested at the idea of
changing venues or continuing a search. While it is now said that the
perceived "local veto" was a misunderstanding, the overall team,
including me, responded to its perceptions of the locals' position by
setting aside the search for alternatives and instead focusing on
minimal changes needed to make the Le Camp contract acceptable to sign.
Of course, some people were enthusiastic about this venue precisely
because everyone would be forced to stay in the same place, rather than
disappear to hotels or to other restaurants/hotels. To me this logic
doesn't work for Le Camp: people won't be forced to stay in the same
place, but rather some of them will be forced by their accommodation
preferences to stay far away, and some of them will just stay at home
instead.
Costs won't change a lot from changing venues, no. But we can get
something
much better for a similar price. Pocock easily found other possible
venues
and I have found another interesting option I haven't shared on list,
only
in IRC.
There's not a lot of use claiming you have interesting options if you
don't share them. I'm not sure where you mean on IRC, but I didn't see
this on the #debconf-team channel. I would prefer that you posted it to
the list -- I know some others will hate that, but whether it's better
or worse than Le Camp, I'd rather that it was public now. Maybe there
will be an obvious flaw that someone local can point out, rather than it
staying as a secret proposal to be mentioned in complaints later on as
if it had no faults of its own.
But that's something that I feel should be commented on by anyone
who was initially for Switzerland/Le Camp, and now against it, not
speculated about by me for whom the issues appear much the same as
at the time of the bid decision meeting.
That's exactly what I did in a previous email that you have probably
read.
For reference:
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121122.153221.79d33304.en.html
I guess that at that point I still believed in the existence of the
"local veto"; and while that may be the wrong name, I still do. We
*have* delayed many months compared to when signing a contract was
originally suggested (a good thing in my view), and we have made a good
start to fundraising and have fixed some major budget and contract
problems. But if the locals insist on staying with their originally
preferred venue, and insist that they took a long time searching to find
that this was the best, and that some will stop working on DebConf if we
push another venue and others if we delay a decision at all, I'm not
sure what you are proposing?
--
Moray
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
