-=| Adnan Hodzic, Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 03:00:00PM +0100 |=- > @Vedran, > > > PS: Plan is to lower the amount of costs for each package, due to the > > problems discussed on irc. Since, we're in Europe, we'll use euros and > > we'll lower the amount by 20%-30%. > > Any other suggestions are welcome! > > Who discussed what problems? May I please get log to this discussion? > > One more thing, decisions that are crucial like this one, will NOT be > concluded just like that. So before making these kind of decisions are > made, I want to be aware of what's going on. My impression is that there is no final decision on sponsorship levels, just ideas floating. I seem to recall the final figures decided on a meeting before. > Well, yes threshold itself is an interesting topic, for example we > might have a situation where one sponsor wants to be a full sponsor, > along with Goverment something as a "friend" (bosnian term) of > conference, or co-main/general-sponsor? Two sponsors want to hand over amounts substantially larger than the Platinum threshold? Good job, guys and girls! How do you do this!? :) If the amounts are roughly the same, I'd say call both sponsors the same, but mention the Govt. first, as they have committed first. > Hypothetical situation, we you have three telecoms for example, every > single of one wants to be sponsor, have the "all-inclusive" package we > have. But every single of them, wants to eliminate other two telecoms > from being on sponsors list. So what do you do in that situation? All > three will get most expensive packages, but if only one wants to > appear and thus eliminating the other two, then this price could go > thriple the price of the most expensive package, or no? To triple the price doesn't seem so unfair, but what if all three want to pay the triple price? How do you choose? An auction? :) Call me naive (I'll take it as a compliment), but I'd feel better staying out of such games. On the other hand there are money at stake so hiding in the sand may not be the best so you can safely ignore me. > What I told Canonical is not to exclude us, but rather keep us in mind > in events they would like to sponsor next year and that I'll > personally make sure they get brochure once we have one ready. And on > top of it that there shouldn't be much deviation in the numbers from > all other DebConfs. Good, very good. > When I sent this email I expected from prvious DebConf's from Spain or > perhaps even Edinburgh could tell me how they "converted" currencies > from previous DebConf's and so on. > > Another thing we have here is, besides the "regular" brochure, > brochure for the local market, that is Balkans, European or American > prices don't work with prices here. You mean to offer lower sponsorship levels for local sponsors? That would seem unfair to the international sponsors, wouldn't it? They all pay for the same thing. > > (Assuming this is right) we _could_ probably introduce different > > levels for > > local companies, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. > > Out of curiousity, why not? Well, "HP BiH" can get to the same level as "HP" with less money. Does this seem fair to you? And introducing a "shadow levels" like "International Platinum" and "Local Platinum" doesn't look good to me either. Cheers for the good work, and please don't take my jabber too seriously. I respond from my *impressions* of how things were before, I have not been part of any sponsorship team. Part of the reasoning behind my response is to provoke other, more knowledgeable people to chime in.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature