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

Re: [Debconf-team] Question for DebConf13 Latvia bid: cheaper options

Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:46:58PM +0200]:
> The best option is a big hotel with the cost negotiated down to 34€
> per person per night including breakfast, that is a very good place,
> 4star hotel, that can host all of us for the whole duration.
> Option two would be to go with the secondary venue, right next to it
> there is a student dorm and another hotel. This dorm could house 100
> people in reasonable accomodations (say one star hotel) for 25€,
> another 100 in regular student housing (basically hostel dorm level)
> for 10€ (both options don't include breakfast) and then the rest of
> the people would have to go to the nearby hotel for 40€ (4 star,
> including breakfast).
> (...)

I think those are the two options we should really consider. The
endless-different-hostels scenario is a guaranteed nightmare, both for
organization and for attendees.

The pricing difference is too large... I think that, although nobody
would argue that the big 4star hotel would be prefered given the
money, we cannot assume we will have €34*150(average people per
day)*14(total days)=€76,500 just for night accomodations. In the
secondary venue scenario, the numbers are too different to do such a
simple multiplication (as we would surely try to fill in the cheaper
options before the expensive one), but given an even split between the
three hotels, it would be €(25+10+40)/3 pppn, that is,
€25*150*14=€52,500. And a difference quite probably over €24,000 is
really worth the hassle.

In this secondary venue scenario, we could say we will only sponsor up
to 200 people — It's never been done like that in DebConf before IIRC,
but we might be forced to it. And yes, many people who'd pay
professional attendance will not pay it and arrange lodging by
themselves, but that's OK (by this I mean that it does not affect us
economically, although it would of course have a social hit).

Regarding closeness to food, pubs and fun: It's great to be
downtown. But if we cannot afford that luxury, that's it. It would not
be the first time people brought their fun over to the venue, and it
has good points to it as well ;-)

Anyway, my numbers are as rough as it can get. I'm sure savings would
be even more than this. So, I'd suggest you to consider heightening
the priority of option 2.

Reply to: