On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:49:36PM -0400, Richard Darst wrote:
> > Have you considered having rather a sliding DebConf year which is, like,
> > a 4 months period with DebConf at its center? Would that be too short in
> > your opinion?
>
> My original proposal was two months after DebConf ended. I think it
> would make sense to begin once sponsorship starts coming in.
That would be fine by me.
> > AOL, that would ease budget monitoring quite a lot.
> I have never considered this in doubt.
Neither I've ever had doubts about common feelings about this :-), but
please note that it was not the case for DebConf10. As we all agree it
was a bug, let's fix this!
> I have more to say, but I will finish fully accounting up both
> DebConf9 and DebConf10 first.
I'm looking forward to your further comments, and thanks for the
precious accounting work your doing.
BTW, I've another comment on the proposal summarized by Holger. What is
the rationale of having several different earmarks at FFIS, one per
year? AFAICT DebConf budgeting windows will never overlap, so one
earmark should be enough which will have the invariant of being empty
outside DebConf budgeting windows and (hopefully) full during them.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature