[Linux-aus] LCA bids -- wonderful presentation, but to what purpose?

[Glen Turner]

Replying to the thread rather than to anyone in particular:


James Turnbull wrote:
> That material - to me at least - is important because I want any LCA to
> look like a professional, credible and valuable conference.

Do the organisations which issue tenders requiring pro-forma responses
look less or more professional?  I'd argue that they look more
professional -- that they know when presentational effort is required
and when that effort should have no effect on the outcome.

This is not to argue against a high standard of presentation in
approaches to sponsors, in materials used to attract attendees, or
in the conference materials themselves.  An effect of this proposal
is to give the volunteer conference team more time to do such things.


I am disturbed to read in this thread that bids *are* assessed on the
presentational quality of their bids -- that some assessors see the
presentation aspects of the bids as somehow reflective of other
capabilities of the bid team.

I would appreciate a clarification to assessors and the public from
Linux Australia if this is intended. I'll note that none of the material
from Linux Australia to this point has listed the presentational quality
of the bid as one of the factors in determining the location of l.c.a.


There was concern when the bid process was launched that it would
result in a fashion parade. That the work of teams which put considerable
effort into holding linux.conf.au would be considerably increased
and the team need to commit for considerably longer to hold a
linux.conf.au.

I see plenty of evidence of this in the recent submissions. And I
ask the Committee to consider if this is desirable.  I present
a pro-forma response as one possible solution to the escalation
of effort which is taking place in l.c.a bids. I'm sure there are
many other solutions.


What is the correct path for this issue to be formally bought before
the L.A committee?


Finally, so there is no confusion.  This is not a comment on
any of the current bids, nor an attempt to influence the outcome.
My concern has been increasing for a number of years, it is
not based only upon the current bids.  Any change in process
should apply to future bids, not to those currently under
consideration.


Best wishes to all, Glen

-- 
  Glen Turner   <http://www.gdt.id.au/~gdt/>