[LGM] How is LGM2015/6 location to be decided?

Louis Desjardins louis.desjardins at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 04:00:42 PDT 2014

2014-04-08 3:59 GMT-04:00 Femke Snelting <snelting at collectifs.net>:

> Yes!
> I proposed to follow more or less the same procedure that we used last
> year. People that were involved in organising LGM 2013 and volunteered for
> organising 2014 studied the proposals and came to a consensus on what venue
> would best suit LGM. I agree with Gregory that this should of course become
> part of the 'permanent' info/procedures published on the LGM website. And
> let's indeed aim for a decision for 2015 and 2016.


Here's an attempt to put that procedure into steps. Comments are within //.
Each year the LGM Venue Recommandation Committee meets to:

   1. Review/update our list of members, who we could name the LGM Venue
   Recommendation Committee (based on this year organisation scheme). I think
   we should make sure all these people are still interested in taking part in
   the decision. These people have a recommendation power. //
   1. Side note, we had 4 more people in the list last year: Andreas Vox
      2. Dave Neary
      3. María Leandro
      4. Timothée Giet //
   2. Review the proposals and make sure that each one follows our
   guidelines. //(Short list is already available on our website;
   comprehensive list with explanations is on the wiki that was badly spammed
   and thus turned off but we might be able to recover these guidelines -- we
   should!) // Some of the bids might need clarifications so we take the time
   to make sure we've got all the bases covered.
   3. Discuss among us about the proposals and try to reach a consensus on
   one venue among the proposals // (or two if we want to handle 2 years this
   year -- a proposal that was made by Greg Pittman during last session and
   which I agree with, also considering that that was a goal for the last few
   years to have a 2-year process so I think we should at least explore this
   possibility as well. Once we have entered this process, the process goes on
   by picking one venue for the second-next year).//
   4. If the recommendation team cannot reach a consensus, we vote and aim
   at a majority. //There are 2 "kinds" of majority: 50+1 or 2/3. Which do we
   pick? As a first thought, 50+1 means we're somewhat in a dilemma. Would we
   ask the people from the communisty to give a hand by feeding more thoughts
   or by voting in a larger audience? In any way, we'd have to ask ourselves
   how to solve that situation if it occurs. Maybe 50+1 is perfectly fine. I
   have no strong opinion about it.//
   5. Publish our recommendation on the mailing list and ask if there are
   strong objections that would make us review our mind. Deadline to do so is
   set to {n} days. If there are valid objections we answer them in the best
   possible way. If not, we have a decision.
   6. Once we have a decision we publish a press release, and it's the kick

Before entering the process, I suggest each of the people taking part in
the process makes a commitment to help LGM and manages to have the large
interest of the community and the projects in mind rather than her or his
own personnal thoughts, wishes or interest. This is to stress that we do
have a responsibilty towards the people we "represent". I also suggest that
we do make a commitment about the attitude we want to have on board which
means that in the end, no matter the process and the discussions, we stand
as a team to make the next LGM better!

Yet to be clarified: Where do we discuss and how? If we do end up with a
list of 25-30 people do we think this is too little, too much? And in such
case of a  25-30 people committee, do we establish a quorum? What would it
be? Half of the people +1? Are the content of the discussions public or
not? I understand the outcome is public, of course, but do we openly
discuss in an archived list? (It's a question, not a comment or a wish.)

I think that's how we can summarize the process.

> Combining 2014 and 2015 volunteers makes a list of 25 people:
> Ale Rimoldi, Alexandre Prokoudine, Camille Bissuel, Femke Snelting,
> Fridrich Strba, ginger coons, Gregory Pittman, Hong Phuc Dang, Jon Nordby,
> Larisa Blasic, Louis Desjardins, Manuel Schmalstieg, Mario Behling, Martin
> Owens, Michael Schumacher, Nathan Willis, Øyvind Kolås/pippin, Pat David,
> Peter Westenberg, Sarup Banskota, Sirko Kemter/gnokii, Steve Conklin, Susan
> Spencer, Valek Filippov.
> http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2014/contacts
> http://titanpad.com/lgm2015
> * It could of course be that you want to help out but prefer not to be
> involved in the decision. Of course one or two people can be added if we
> feel that the list does not represent the community (in 2013 we added
> Alexandre Prokoudine for example). It might be that this group is too large.
> * Last year we appointed contact persons for each location but the 2015
> proposals are all represented with at least one person in the list above
> (Hong Phuc, Mario for Phnom Penh; ginger for Toronto; Louis for Montreal
> and Larisa for London).
> * The group meets on IRC at least two times: one to discuss each proposal,
> and to identify possible problems and points to investigate. In a second
> and if necessary a third meeting a consensus is reached and communicated on
> the LGM mailinglists, and consequently on the LGM website. We aim for a
> decision in the first week of May 2014. Meeting logs and notes are public.
> What do you think? I'd like to call for a first meeting this week.

My meeting with PSF people at PyCon can only take place next week (just got
the confirmation) so I will not have more details to confirm about the
Montreal proposal in an early meeting this week. However I do believe that
we have lots of other things on the mechanics of the process that we could
discuss as preliminary and for that reason I would also support a meeting
this week, if this is possible.

An agenda to this meeting would be of great use!

As a draft for this first meeting: Go through step 1 and 2. Make sure we
have the people and they are willing to be part of the process. Establish
our process more clearly. Settle the list of members, set the quorum, etc.
For #2, make sure the proposals meet the guidelines and if not help those
people filing the blanks. In other words, make sure we have all bases
covered and no proposal is left over for technical reasons (unless they
cannot at all be solved but this seems to be not the case at first sight
and from the presentations we had at LGM).

I would also suggest we do this over the week-end. At least for me, I have
a hard week ahead after being away for a week! ;-)



> Femke
> Femke
> On 07/04/14 23:55, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> On 7 April 2014 23:05, ginger coons <ginger at adaptstudio.ca <mailto:
>> ginger at adaptstudio.ca>> wrote:
>>     those who know how the selection process works.
>> Who dat?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
>> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
>>  _______________________________________________
> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20140408/c312c2ce/attachment.html>

More information about the Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list