[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Debconf-team] Early travel sponsorship


someone approached me today with the following thought / idea:

"As your sponsorship meeting is a bit late, how about approving travel
 sponsorship for a selected set of people earlier? It seems a shame to
 wait until the meeting is done as the travel prices will go up in the
 meantime, so people who are obviously deserving could get it earlier."

We did have some discussion about that. My main trouble with this idea
is "Who the heck do we define as "obviously deserving""? One thought
would be to use the work the sponsorship team already did and take the
ratings from there, giving people top ranked money.
To that I can say that we have a team of 13 people. The top ranked
currently has 7 ratings, the average is 4 or 5. So about half the team
still has to enter their ratings, which means all the current ranking
COULD go down the drain.
Another point against could be that in the current Top25 we have 6
members of the sponsorship team, which (validly) would let people
complain about "you favor yourself".[1]

Things to keep in mind:
- Yes, travel prices vary and usually also go up
- People will get whatever it was they entered into "amount im unable to
  pay myself" at maximum. Less if they paid less.
- Yes, we check receipts.
- I have no idea right now how much money we actually have to get out. I
  made that a point for the meeting tomorrow, so someone can tell me.
  Need that anyway after the meeting

I obviously do not want to decide this on my own, so here it goes to
-team and to herb@.

[1] For the full process we work against the "conflict of interest" and
    favoring yourself up by having such a large team. You can't rank
    yourself up shit, if the other people think your travel request is
    idiotic and on drugs.

bye, Joerg
[...] some would argue that too much free beer with hamper your ability to free
speech; this is an opinion.

Attachment: pgpExLtDzQeH6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: