On 01/12/12 02:54, Moray Allan wrote: > 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
People do have a right to veto something, and it's good if people communicate these things early rather than later on. The bid did suggest that backup options existed and could be considered, so the global team was under the impression that they weren't locked into Le Camp when choosing the Swiss team 6 months back. In fact, vetos and ultimatums can be a good negotiating tactic: - imagine saying to Le Camp, "Give us normal European prices or we go and do DebConf across the border like many Swiss people do for their shopping" - imagine saying to the Canton: "Give us a subsidy like other events or we don't have our event in this canton or maybe not even in Switzerland" As far as I can tell, those ultimatums were never made Those opportunities to get the best value for Debian (possibly at the preferred venue) have been lost. Instead, certain people have been negotiating in reverse, putting ultimatums up to Debian rather then the local vendors. Making threats that extract what is good for Switzerland and good for Le Camp rather than what is best for the Debian community. So while they have the right to do that, I think the global team would be entitled to call their bluff, as a local team that really wants to make a DebConf would not just walk away. _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
