Hi, I think it's enough at this point now. Getting sick of your poison you are distributing the whole time here. There are 4 proposals, because Andreas forgot to mention Buenos Aires. That means 3 are on your side of the Atlantic. We all agreed in a meeting you was not seen in, that for the future we like to see proposals in a higher quality in advance. It was also agreed how to handle it this time, there is time until 15th of May for all for putting together a proposal answering to all questions. After that an IRC meeting will happen, where all open questions will be answered and an decision will be made. There was not fixed who has the right to vote in this meeting, it's an open process. There is also the option that no majority can go for one place and also there was an agreement to give more people the possibility to have there voice heard on the mailing list. It looks to me like an fair and acceptable way how to handle it, a huge step forward. Definitely better as the marshland we had here before. People who knows me well, know I have an memory like an elephant. So lets go back what did happen in Vienna. Two proposals for 2013 Madrid and Montreal. The majority was for Madrid and it was more an "could be" meaning for Montreal 2014. It was more lets Louis not travel sad home.... From 8 LGM 3 was in Montreal, I think a lot agree that's more then enough. A lot will agree go there will destroy all opportunities we have now putting a clear process how and when propose it and make LGM to an really FLOSS event for all people interested in. Not for a few that like the marshland like it was because they have there sheep in the try.... We will see what happen after 15th of May and where we go and how many of the proposals stay as option for 2015 in case they are not taken for 2014. But I fear after that unfortunate attempts here to enforce Montreal for 2014, nobody likes to go there also for 2015 even it has PyCon as an argument in that year to. What I wondering about is the arrogance that some have saying such things like differ from other floss events and is something totally special. It is not, some have to realize that. On all events the process is open and who does the work decides. This year on the table there was not only a lot of people, there was also a lot of people who are involved in other floss events some of them are bigger then the LGM such events like SCaLE, Flisol, FOSSASIA, LinuxTag, Linux-Tage, DevConf.cz speaking about participation where was your voice in the closing session or on the table? So please stay away now from your poisonous mails trying to enforce Montreal for 2014, it's not helpful we will find out soon where we go for 2014 and then open it for 2015. br gnokii P.S. dont feed the troll <div class="gmail_quote">2013/4/24 Gregory Pittman <<a href="mailto:gpittman@iglou.com" target="_blank">gpittman@iglou.com</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div>On 04/23/2013 05:58 PM, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Am Dienstag, 23. April 2013, 21:33:10 schrub Gregory Pittman: [...] <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Well, for one thing, decisions are not based on the results of an applause meter (as Femke mentioned at the time). </blockquote> Since LGM is meant for the people actually going there an applause meter might very well be the best way to decide where to go. No idea if personal preferences of a few committee members are any better, we will see in about a year by looking at the number of participants. But that's just my personal opinion. </blockquote></div></div> If you think about it though, there are some serious problems with this method. At the foremost, it turns to decision into cheering for a city/country, as opposed to seeing a proposed site in the context of the quality of the LGM that might take place there, and perhaps some sense of the economic and other challenges that attendees might face. The presumption that those who did not attend LGM this year but have in the past are no longer interested in LGM and unlikely to attend in future doesn't really have anything to back it up. It seems possible that there are some who cannot afford to attend every year, and proximity to where they live is a major issue. If we imagine, for example, that next year LGM might be in Leipzig, that would be 3 years in a row in Europe, rather skewing the assessment of attendance. I don't think it's unusual for groups who have meetings to rely on some committee for site selection. In the case of LGM, anyone who wishes to be part of this process has been welcomed to volunteer to help. In the past, few have come forward to volunteer their time and effort for the purpose.</blockquote> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div> Greg _______________________________________________ Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list <a href="mailto:Libre-graphics-meeting@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">Libre-graphics-meeting@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> -- make me rich, buy my Inkscape book <a href="http://is.gd/yq5OD0" target="_blank">http://is.gd/yq5OD0</a> ;)