On 5 March 2014 23:58, martin f krafft <madd...@debconf.org> wrote:
> also sprach Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <ti...@debian.org> [2014-03-05 21:59 +0100]:
>> After giving more attention to the bid's pages and reading
>> emails/meetings backlogs I'm blocked by my current preference:
>>
>> #1 Heidelberg
>> #2 Mechelen
>> #3 Munich
>>
>> So it's very clear that the 2-options bid strategy makes things
>> difficult to me.
>
> Please don't split Heidelberg and Munich up. They are part of the
> same bid. And we believe that this should make things easier for
> you, instead. Here's why:
>
> Let's assume for one moment that you chose the German team, which
> proposed your top preference, Heidelberg. What could possibly happen
> next?
[snip]
> B) The team develops Munich further to the point where it trumps
> Heidelberg, and then choses Munich, because it is the best
> proposal;
> → everyone happy (and DebConf gets even better)!
This takes the final venue decision from Debconf team to local team,
which has so far happened only in exceptional cases.
> C) Heidelberg's venue burns down, so the team falls back to using
> Munich;
> → everyone happy, for a lesser DebConf is better than no DebConf.
Actually - no, not everyone is happy, because a different venue
outside Germany would have then been a better choice.
> D) All venues proposed in a bid burn down;
> → everyone unhappy, but 50 % less likely to happen to the German
> team
Both venues can "burn down" for the same cause, so the probability is
not 50% lower.
[snip]
> Yes, you might say that you'd then try to re-activate the second
> option (by another team), but I am not sure how realistic that is.
> After all, you'd be asking another team to keep the option warm until
> DebConf was successfully executed.
Actually what is being asked is to develop all proposed options by all
teams to such a level that a valid and final decision can be made
between all proposed venue options. If the chosen option fails after
the decision is made, that is an extraordinary situation that should
not influence the decision as such. There is *more* competition before
the venue decision, so negotiations should be made now, not some time
later when options have already become more limited.
IMHO if both Germany bids are still so much in flux that even the
local team can not decide now between them, then it becomes hard for
the global team to decide or either (or both) of them, especially if
another bid can be currently evaluated as being between the two German
bids in its desirability.
In my eyes the combined German bid would rank lower than either of
them individually. This is because of the worst case scenario - German
team wins the bid, spends a lot of time and effort developing both
bids, mostly the preferred one and then the preferred bid fails and
all that time spent on it is wasted and we have a weaker location with
far less time spent on developing it. Less than if it would have been
chosen as the winning bid immediately. So looking from worst case -
combined bid is weaker than either of them.
--
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovs mailto:aigar...@debian.org
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
| .''`. Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) |
| : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) |
| `. `' Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting |
| `- (http://www.aiteki.com) |
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
