[EuroPython] EuroPython decision process

[Martijn Faassen]

Denis Fr=E8re wrote:
> I've followed the good advice : close my mailbox for the week-end and
> come back with calm and serenity after the week-end.
>=20
> First of all, I would like to apologize for not having discussed the
> point with Martijn before announcing EPC 2004.

Thanks for the apology; I appreciate it very much, but if you are just
apologizing to me this is beside the point I've been trying to make.
But from this mail I unstand it's at least in a large part directed
to just me, as you keep mentioning my name. :)

I do want to let any implication be there though that I was arguing for=20
myself only; if it had just been me I'd not have made all this noise.
I care about EuroPython and the EuroPython team; I felt this was damaged.=
=20
For me it's easier to just hop in the train to Charleroi in 2004 than alm=
ost
any other location. I do not feel that just doing so without at least
some deliberation among this group is in the best interest of any of us
though, including myself.

> Indeed, we discussed a
> lot during the conference, Tim even came with this quite publicly, but
> as a matter of fact,

To make matters clear on this too, as I personally recall this occasion;
it's been quoted a lot to mean almost anything, just like any statistics,
so let me bend it to my particular point of view too:

He asked the crowd whether people were going to not show up if it were to
be held in location X, Y, or Z. Raise your hand if you won't show up.
I didn't raise my hand 3 times; I'll do my best to show up wherever it
is held in Europe, of course. I didn't recall lots of people raising
their hands in any case, but then I didn't do a count.

This is *not* the same at all in my mind to actually discussing the choic=
e
itself, just to get some data on how the various locations might matter.

>  I didn't ask Martijn's advice.
> And after the conference, while being still 'warm', encouraged by some
> (biased) advices, I couldn't refrain my juvenile enthousiasm. :-)
> Sorry Martijn.

and sorry everybody else who didn't think this was the optimal thing
to do (to announce it; asking my advice only matters to *me*), I hope
and assume.

> Second, I think that everybody will agree now that this fuss comes
> from one main reason : we don't have defined the way of how decisions
> are taken.

I also was rather shocked as I believed we at least had the standard of
fair, wide and open communication in our making of decisions, if nothing
else.

> That was the enlightened conclusion of some of you (Martijn,
> Jacob, Andy, ...)=20
>=20
[setting up an association for EuroPython]

It's very good that you've been taking these steps! Thanks. We're all eag=
er to
learn more about this, I'm sure.

> Here is a copy of the parts I fully support :
>=20
> <quoting Andy Robinson>
[blaming nobody]
> > The most helpful thing in promoting an event is a clear decision on d=
ates
> > and location.    The best way to achieve this is to do it at each
> > conference.  So I suggest that in future, anyone wanting to "bid" sta=
rts
> > doing so on the list about 15 months before, and all candidates prese=
nt
> > their case in a session before the keynote.  Then we have a show of h=
ands.
> >  Others could vote by proxy on the list with a deadline of lunchtime =
that
> > day so there is time to count.  Whoever winds has a whole year to pla=
n and
> > their advance publicity is already done.

I think this voting procedure needs to be worked so it's fair and not
biased towards 'locals' who may often be motivated to vote for something
nearby. I still think a membership system is
still preferable, where members can vote. Conference attendees will becom=
e
automatic members for the next N years, perhaps. Others can become a memb=
er
for a moderate price.=20

Another quibble is the timing; being caught up in both the preparation fo=
r
the conference this year and the whole voting story for the *coming*
year may be too distracting at that point. It's hard to say. I don't=20
know how other organizations deal with this.

Anyway, Andy's procedure is still much better than what we have now,
of course. :)

> > A common topic in the corridors was 'where is next year'.  Tim asked =
for a
> > public show of hands (I think, I missed it).  Francis made a very str=
ong
> > and reasoned case for keeping it where it is. Lots of people enjoy it=
 in
> > Belgium and there is a precedent for having European institutions the=
re.

 * Francis is happily quoted by everybody when he says the conference sho=
uld
   stay in one place, but then Andy proceeds with saying=20
   'why not two conferences?' (which I do note Denis did not quote, so
   this is only to Andy). Francis also made a case for just one conferenc=
e
   a year. This rather weakens Andy's argument. :)
=20
   I can list my case for having EuroPython move around elsewhere.

 * Lots of people will enjoy it elsewhere too.

 * Let's keep the EU out of it. There's plenty of wrangling in the EU
   about where EU institutions should be too! We're a haven of agreement
   compared to the EU..

> > [...]
> > Going forward, I believe that contenders should launch their bids abo=
ut 13
> > months out (plenty of time to discuss on the lists and get facts and
> > pictures on a web site), make a presentation for their own location b=
efore
> > the keynote, and decide it with a clear show of hands.

Discussing on the list 1 month before the conference itself doesn't seem
to be like a good idea, we're rather busy with more important stuff, i.e.
the conference next month.

The presentation of alternate locations needs to be made on the web. I=20
also suggest the actual vote is done online and after the conference is
over, so that people can ponder it over for a bit and people who=20
couldn't make this year's conference can perhaps read a few conference
reports. This makes it much more fair procedure than having 'second rank'=
=20
voters on some mailing list somewhere.

> > The only alternative I see is to try and appoint some NEUTRAL committ=
ee
> > who have no plans to host an event (I'll happily be on that) and let
> > contenders fly us out, wine us and dine us and bribe us like the Olym=
pic
> > Committee.....

That's not the only alternative. A membership system is another, and
can be combined with this. Let's please not bring this down to two=20
alternatives straight away while there are obviously a ton of variations.

Regards,

Martijn