Hi Roberto,
Regardless of whatever could be my political views (which I'm trying to
set aside), there's issues with your reasoning below:
On 2/20/20 2:20 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Another and clearly better and more inclusive approach would be to not
> "penalize" people for the government
Hi,
Em 18/02/2020 15:31, Roberto C. Sánchez escreveu:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
Right. But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
people[*] was done in good taste
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 07:49:59AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> We could have something like a "bid acceptability check", at the start of
> the process, to detect, discuss and formally decide on Elephants early
> on.
> One way to achieve that could be to poll regular DebConf attendees about
>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:26:06PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > absolutly. I still dont think it was right to have this decission in
> > private,
> > but at least announcing it earlier would have been better.
> >
> > (I do think having the decission in private was neccessary because else the
>
On 19/02/20 at 23:17 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hello Lucas,
>
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:45:43AM +0100]:
> > > Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> > > communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> > > us to need to
Holger Levsen dijo [Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:02:06PM +]:
> (...)
> > Agreed to those (as I also said at the time). I think it was obvious to
> > us early on in the DC20 decision process that we'd want to do this
> > privately. We should have announced that.
>
> absolutly. I still dont think it
Hello Lucas,
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:45:43AM +0100]:
> > Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> > communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> > us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
> >
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:10:42PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Jonathan (2020.02.18_16:29:34_+)
> > I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
> > * Not having a bid committee for that vote
> I don't know how necessary a bid committee has been, since the
Hi Jonathan (2020.02.18_16:29:34_+)
> I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
>
> * Not having a bid committee for that vote
I don't know how necessary a bid committee has been, since the change
from DebConf chairs to the DebConf Committee. This is a big
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:51:13 +0100, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> Is the decision making process clearly documented somewhere?
I don't think so …
> Is the decision making body documented somewhere, i.e. ewhere can I find
> out who is part of the committee? And how can people join this body?
The
Hi,
On 19/02/2020 02:54, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> [...] but I think the current DebConf committee
> should strongly consider setting up a bid committee again (even if it
> largely or mostly overlaps with the DCC, that might just be natural) and
> keep the bid decision public as it
Hi,
On 18/02/20 at 23:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not
> communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led
> us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously
> appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for
Hi all,
On 19.02.20 06:54, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> gregor herrmann dijo [Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:00:33PM +0100]:
>>> That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
>>> need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
>>> happen behind closed doors again
gregor herrmann dijo [Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:00:33PM +0100]:
> > That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or
> > need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't
> > happen behind closed doors again like last time.
>
> AFAICS the process for DC20
Daniel Lange writes:
> "active apartheid regime" is politically loaded lingo and shows where you
> stand.
This is another way of saying that it clearly communicates a political
point of view. Perhaps that was the goal. If one holds the position that
this is an inherently political decision
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:44:09 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2020/02/18 21:15, Daniel Lange wrote:
> >> […] I think the current DebConf committee
> >> should strongly consider […]
> >> keep the bid decision public as it was in prior DebConfs.
> > We held public review meetings for the DC21
Hi Daniel
On 2020/02/18 21:15, Daniel Lange wrote:
>> I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
>>
>> * Not having a bid committee for that vote
>> * Making it a private vote
>> * Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
>> nor that it would
On 2020/02/18 20:31, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Right. But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
> not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
> people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity? Sure.
No one said or implied anything
Hi Jonathan
I haven't publicly said this before, but I believe it was a big mistake:
* Not having a bid committee for that vote
* Making it a private vote
* Not announcing the the DCC would be the bid committee
nor that it would be a private vote
You have been part of the DCC at
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>
> On a purely personal note, I find it in rather poor taste to talk about
> diversity in the context of having DC in a country with an active
> apartheid regime.
>
Right. But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it
Hey OdyX
On 2020/02/18 10:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> I'm quite frustrated, disappointed and angry reading the above.
>>
>> I had expressed a fairly strong discomfort with the anti-DC20 messaging
>> I got from the original contact about Montreal.
>
> To offer some contrast, although I can
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:43:53AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>Le lundi, 17 février 2020, 19.19:02 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> > "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui writes:
>> Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
>> Jerome> desire to participate became
Le lundi, 17 février 2020, 19.19:02 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
> > "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui writes:
> Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
> Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
> Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott,
> "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui writes:
Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian
25 matches
Mail list logo
