[CREATE] Decision for LGM 2011 venue — Action required

[Louis Desjardins]

2010/6/27 Yuval Levy <create07 at sfina.com>

> > We need the data to analyse it and come up with a recommendation so act
> > now, please! :)
>
> Cher Louis, dear all,
>

Hi Yuval,
Hi all,

>
> I've been away from almost everything Free graphics for too long and don't
> expect my availability to improve soon :(
>

This is too bad. We will be glad to have you back with us.


>
> I saw a lot of traffic on this ML, my apology for following it only with
> the DELETE key.  Here my 2 cents to the wiki pages linked, hoping they are
> helpful to you.
>
>
> *1* Guidelines http://create.freedesktop.org/wiki/Conference_2011
>
> the guidelines mostly make sense to me, with exception of three issues:
> A. reinvention of the wheel
> B. politics
> C. ueberburocratization
>
> Details below.  Beyond these three issues I see a discussion about venue
> alternation.  I consider venue alternation to be a mildly political topic.
>  Alternation, or rather variety, is desirable.  But it should not be a
> determinant factor in itself.  More important are the quality of the
> venue; and the time and money factors.  Variety in this context does not
> mean change for change sake.  It means sharing the burden of travel so
> that it is not always the same group of people that has the "home
> advantage".
>
>
> A. reinvention of the wheel
>
> Over the past few years the wheel has been reinvented too often / too
> much.  One of the main points of Free software is not to rewrite code.
> Fine-tuning is OK, but after six editions there is enough LGM code that
> can be re-used / adapted to future LGM.  IMHO the "LGM code" got rewritten
> too much / too often with no obvious/tangible benefit.
>

Nicely said. We certainly want to re-use the code we can. This was at the
heart of putting together those guidelines. They can be made better, for
sure.

>
>
> B. politics
>
> We all have opinions and they belong in the appropriate forums.  Not here.
>  While the guidelines identify serious factors and risks, they fail IMHO
> to clearly state that politics, including politics toward Free software,
> has nothing to do here.  Drop the hot potato before it burns your hands.
> The people involved in LGM / Free Graphics can't be held responsible for
> the political issues in their countries.  And since there are political
> issues in every country, and they are relative / a matter of perspective,
> we better focus on what unites us (Free Graphics) than on what divides us
> (political issues).
>

The guidelines leave that field up to the individuals. LGM has nothing to do
on that field. Agree.

>
>
> C. ueberburocratization
>
> The two years process is a good idea and I like that the "LGM code" gets a
> little bit more stability / continuity through the board envisioned in [0]
> but a 9-members board is IMHO excessive bloat.  There is enough discussion
> and consultation at the public (ML and project teams) level.  Keep the
> board focused on decision, and on passing down the DNA that we know works
> to avoid re-invention of the wheel.  I would suggest 3 to 5 permanent
> board members. add 1-2 representative of the local org each year.
>
> [0] http://create.freedesktop.org/wiki/Ideas_for_a_LGM_Board
>
> Thanks for this input. (a) The 2-year process is something I strongly
believe in. (b) It’s a good idea to maybe have a smaller board. The idea
here, at least as a start, was to have the people involved in the
organisation at the first level. There could be lots of variants, down the
road. Please also note that in the proposal, the board itself has to work in
collaboration with the teams and with the community. I certainly don’t want
this to become burocratization.

One idea that could become part of the guidelines is about the local org
being on the board the year before so they can get involved and know the
mechanics before putting together a bid. This is only meant to have fully
aware teams and stronger organisation. We might come up with a better
proposal down the road. Let’s hear what the others have to say.

Louis



> *2* Evaluation of proposals
>
> the above said, looking at the three proposals and given the information
> provided in the proposals, my pecking order would be:
> 1. Canada
> 2. Vietnam
> 3. Brazil
>
> It was a difficult choice - I feel I am lacking some critical information,
>

Like we all do. This is why we insist so much on having this info on the
table.


> and of course I am biased.


Who isn’t?


> As much as I would like to visit Vietnam or
> Brazil as a tourist, I think this is first and foremost about getting
> things done (conference) and not about leisure & tourism.
>

Agree.

>
> @Brazil: how much for a hotel room?  how much for a meal?  how much for a
> flight from Europe? from Asia? from North America ?  how would we be
> clustered locally / distance between hotels and conference? local traffic?
>  I feel uncomfortable with the not yet secured venue.
>
> @Vietnam: realistically, do you think we'll sleep in the 10-15$/night
> place, or in the 100$/night place in "district 1"?  I don't want to guess,
> I do want "developed country" level budget comfort (e.g. no cockroaches).
> Allergy from airco does not bode well for health... and having a long
> commute from the hotels to the conference venue does not appeal to me.


> @Canada: OK, you've hosted LGM twice, you have the advantage of "better
> the devil you know" from my perspective.
>

Let’s keep all those comments for the next round, once we have all the
informations on the table.

>
> a rather longish 2cents.
>

np :)

> HTH
> Yuv
>
> Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/create/attachments/20100628/3a88f2b6/attachment.html>