[CREATE] Decision for LGM 2011 venue — Action required

[Louis Desjardins]

2010/6/28 Yuval Levy <create07 at sfina.com>

(...)

> I would like to have a quantitative model for the "distance cost" as part
> of the guidelines.  "Distance cost" is IMHO the most significant factor in
> the decision.  A quant model can abstract and do away much of the
> subjectivity.
>

This is the purpose of the "TIME" and "MONEY" guidelines.

>
> For that model, I need global and local input.  Local input comes from the
> proposals.
>
> Global input: what is the potential pool of traveler-participants from
> each region of the world?  My approximation for this would be the number
> of active developers in each region because I assume that artists are less
> inclined to travel to a conference.
>

We could use the numbers of this year’s LGM as a good indicator. Femke ?

>
> Can we have a single list of regions? how detailed must it be?
>
> can we live with:
> - North America
> - Central America
> - South America
> - Europe
> - Africa
> - Asia
> - Australia/NZ
>
> or do we need a more detailed one? regions should be built around "travel
> clusters" - so maybe it makes sense to distinguish between East and West
> Coast in North-America (big different for Pacific/Atlantic travel); and
> between Sub-Saharan Africa and North-Africa); and between Northern and
> Southern Europe; etc.
>
> Can we have an idea of how many devs live in each of these regions?  Can
> each project, or at least the largest projects, do a quick head count and
> quantify their contributors and split them geographically?  Maybe with two
> separate categories for "core contributors" and "other contributors"?  Of
> course there will still be some subjectivity (e.g. what qualifies for an
> active dev), but we need some estimates to start with, and we can keep the
> data and refine it as we go on.  Note: developer in this context
> encompasses translator, document-writer, etc... all roles that contribute
> to the general development of the project, not just software developers.
>

Who qualifies as a contributor is left to the discretion of the Teams. They
qualifiy for a reimbursement as well as speakers at LGM who are not already
part of a team.

>
> Local input:  The minimum I would expect to see, from each bid is:
> - flight cost per traveler from each of these regions
> - lodging cost per traveler
> - food cost per traveler
> - local transport cost per traveler
>
> all expressed in a single currency to be comparable. USD.
>

This was understood but should maybe put in a more explict wording? What
would you suggest?

And the of travel expressed in the time "currency": HOURS!

>
> I want this summarized into a single number per region of origin.  My
> critique of the Vietnam proposal is that I can not discern whether the
> 15$/hotel will be up to standard or not.
>
> Of course we need to set a global standard, a minimum of what we would
> expect.  Lodging cost should be for a double room, with bathroom and
> decent hygienic standards.  Sorry for picking up on Vietnam again: airco
> allergy is not a decent hygienic standard since it means that the airco's
> filters are not serviced often enough.  If individual participants decide
> to cut corners at their own risk and reduce expenses, that's a personal
> choice.  For the budget, I want numbers that are realistic for the average
> traveler, and I can't discern if the 15$/night hotel in Vietnam is such a
> thing.
>
> Once we have the numbers, we can do the math.
>

Again, yes. Exactly. This, by the way, is true for any venue.

>
> I would like to add a weighting factor to the math:
> *distance-inconvenience*. Bear with me and the explanation will follow
> below.
>

While the following is very interesting (I followed you until the end!), can
we keep that under the umbrella of the personnal and team appreciation and
gather those responses and then see who’s making it, who’s not and decide
from there if the LGM can or cannot take place ?

If the majority of the developers are not able or not willing to go, or if
we cannot find enough budget to pay for their trip, will there be an LGM at
that particular venue? Could the local team find better solutions to address
some specific questions raised by the LGMers? Would the local team need more
time to work-out their bid? (And this brings me back into the 2-year
process... )

>
> For each region of the world, its distance-inconvenience factor express
> how inconvenienced people from that region were at attending LGM.
>
> Let y be the number of years elapsed since a specific LGM (e.g. y=1 for
> LGM2009 Montreal), and let Kry be the distance, in Km, from the center of
> a region r to the LGM location y years ago.  The distance-inconvenience
> factor Dr is the sum of all Kry/y since LGM's inception.
>
> We want to bring LGM to a region with high Dr to share fairly the burden
> of travel (should be stated in the guidelines, IMHO).
>
> For every destination d, and for every origin of travel region r, I would
> like to see a single number, in USD, Vrd summarizing total travel cost for
> an average visitor, from region r to destination d.
>
> Now we can calculate for every bid a potential maximum travel cost by
> multiplying Vrd with the number of potential traveler-participant from
> each region (Pr).  We want to keep the total travel burden low, i.e.
> minimize Vrd*Pr
>
> Next comes some (unavoidable) subjectivity.  What is the estimated
> probability that a potential participant from region r will actually
> participate at an event at destination d?  We can only guesstimate this
> probability Xrd.  But it is important to do so because we want to maximize
> participation, i.e. the sum of Xrd*Pr
>
> To make it fair, we want to maximize weighted participation, i.e. the sum
> of Xrd*Pr*Dr
>
> If you managed to follow me until here, thank you for your patience and
> congratulation.  We should now have a set of comparable numbers, for each
> bid, to express their distance-incovenience adjusted travel cost.
>


> Hard cost numbers can be sorted and ranked easily, but are not the only
> factor to consider.  The other side of the numbers is revenue.  How much
> sponsorship revenues stands against the likely potential travel cost of
> Vrd*Xrd*Br ?
>
> Having a quant model for this part of the decision takes some subjectivity
> away and enables us to consciously minimize total travel impact while
> dispersing cost as fairly as possible over the different regions of the
> world.
>

Well, that is exactly the reason for the guidelines.

>
> Still, softer, subjective factors remain to consider, such as the
> definition of standards for travel, lodging, food, local transportation.
>

This is up to each person to decide, isn’t it? AND let us know whether this
is a blocking bug or just something to consider but not a top priority. If
the vast majority don’t care, then ok. On the contrary...

But then again, keeping in mind the fact that we want to have a low number
of guidelines but they must be as significant and as helpful as possible,
how would you phrase this?

Not commenting on the next portion of your post since I think we basically
cannot judge without first gathering the facts we need in the light of the
guidelines.

Thanks a lot for your input, it’s really appreciated!

Louis

>
> Sorry Brazil, your proposal as I read it on the Wiki page when I was asked
> to read was superficial and incomplete.  I don't want to collect
> information from any other place than from a complete and submitted
> proposal on the wiki.  Go back and do your homework.  As me to read and
> judge a bid on a wiki page when it is complete.
>
> Congratulations Vietnam, your proposal has a lot of information.  The
> issue I have when reading your proposal is that I can not make the call as
> to whether the "district 1" 100$/night hotel is necessary or whether the
> 15$/night hotel is up to standard.  I think we should give you the
> standard and you should judge if the hotels, restaurant, and local
> transport are all up to those standard and what the cost are.  The choice
> between you and Canada was the difficult one for me at this stage, given
> the currently available information.
>
> And for Montreal, sorry Louis. You have the advantage of being a known
> (and very solid) value; which is also a disadvantage because people who
> have seen 2009 perceive it as "this is Montreal", while in reality it was
> a last minute herculean effort to salvage LGM from a catastrophe, and did
> not give you the time to unfold all of your potential.
>
> In any case, besides whatever I ranked, I support an LGM in any of the
> three locations.  It is not the *where* that counts.  It is the *why*, the
> *how*, the *who*.
>

 Yuv
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/create/attachments/20100628/5dc5cf6a/attachment-0001.htm>