Hi there!
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:00:54 +0200, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Gaudenz Steinlin dijo [Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 06:21:40PM +0200]:
>> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> > Sponsorship levels
>> > ------------------
>> >
>> > * BRONZE - starting from CHF 2'500 [DC10 2'000, DC11 2'500, DC12 2'000]
>> > * SILVER - starting from CHF 7'500 [DC10 10'000, DC11 6'000, DC12 5'000]
>> > * GOLD - starting from CHF 15'000 [DC10 20'000, DC11 12'000, DC12 12'500]
>> > * PLATINUM - starting from CHF 30'000 [DC10 30'000, DC11 30'000, DC12 25'000]
>>
>> A bit of context why the levels were lowered after DC10 would be nice.
[...]
> They were reduced, as IIRC we had a "steel" category; the benefits
> between two of the levels were almost nonexistant, and we decided to
> drop one of the sponsorship levels.
>
> For DC10 we also didn't have government sponsorship.
>
> And yes... Raising 200,000 CHF still... makes me shiver :-( I just
> hope we can make it. Keeping a "plan B" in case we don't should be a
> priority :-/
Gunnar, I completely understand the above and I think everyone in the
localteam already got it. But, speaking for myself and not for the
whole team, can we please stop remarking it?
We, better I was clear since the beginning (FWIW way before the official
presentation) that a DebConf in Switzerland would have costed more than
(any) previous one, still we attracted consensus & Co., we even won the
bid ;-) I feel a bit [b|s]ad when I read such things because it gives
the impression that raising 200'000 CHF is impossible, which IMHO it is
not at all (also having seen prices for "normal" conferences here).
About the "plan B": during the bid preparation we got the idea that the
major problem in the big cities (Genève, Lausanne and Zürich) would have
been accommodation, given that most of the times the venue would have
been given at no cost by academic institutions. As the RMLL 2012 showed
(e.g. meals at UniMail for 10.00 CHF) and as I have already written
before [1], we chose one of the cheapest option for both accommodation
and meals (the venue at 'Le Camp' is included).
[1] <mid:871uq8kefd.fsf@gismo.pca.it>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:12:38 +0100
Subject: Re: [Debconf-team] Question for DebConf13 bids: Costs
We will for sure keep a "plan B", but IMHO we should not expect so many
cost reductions. And I do not think that the "plan B" should be a
priority, instead the other way around: looking as much as possible for
sponsors for "plan A" is what we should do until the end of this year.
>> > Notes
>> > -----
>> >
>> > * The size and order of sponsor logos in promotional materials will be
>> > set according to the amount of sponsorship received from each
>> > sponsor.
>>
>> Minor nitpick: I think this should be according to the sponsorship
>> category. I don't think it's practical to have different sizes of logos
>> even in the same category. It will just look ugly.
>
> Right, the order can be set according to the exact amount, but the
> size should be comparable. And comparable still leaves a lot of
> ambiguity - A 200x10 logo is much more visible than a 45x45 one, even
> though it has a very similar area.
Got it, thanks. Are all these dimensions explained/set somewhere?
>> > * We would like to note that hardware donations to support the DebConf
>> > infrastructure are welcomed.
>>
>> Is this really true? I'm not aware that we are in need of any hardware
>> for DebConf at the moment. I would avoid this because im my experience
>> companies that actually sell hardware or services that we might use tend
>> to prefer to donate this instead of money. But we mostly need money, not
>> hardware or services. If companies ask we can always negotiate
>> something, but I would not offer this possibility upfront.
>
> I think we can kep this possibility open - in case we need it. Of
> course, we should not accept hardware we don't need. But remember that
> Debconf-is-Debian. We can get a server donation as part of Debian's
> hardware replacement program, saving debian the equivalent money, and
> getting it from the inside.
Should I completely remove that part for the next level proposal?
Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpIlzaBy_DfS.pgp
Description: PGP signature