Hi there! On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:30:01 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Luca Capello <luca@pca.it> writes: >> IMHO we should go there *before* the BSP so we can compare both options, >> Interlaken and Le Camp. But if the general voice is that we should do >> that after the BSP, then let Michele and myself wait: please however >> state that *now*, so I can cancel the meeting. > > No, please go there! ;-) I think the message cited above lists the most > important issues. I have a few more minor suggestions: > > - Possibility to only rent part of Le Camp for Debcamp. This is not > optimal, but maybe better than shortening. While we need the main > rooms during (part) of DebCamp for setup, we don't need all the > "sleeping houses". This option could also be combined with shortening > the whole thing. IMHO given the minimum amount of money per day it does not change anything if we rent part of Le Camp. I will ask anyway. > - Option of Le Camp sponsoring DebConf. If they reduce the price, we > could list them as sponsors. I don't have high hopes that they agree > to this, but we could at least try. I disagree. Not to mention that this could be used against us: they already invested around 100k CHF for the fiber connectivity, mostly because it was a good Internet connection (not the crappy ADSL that they had before) was a must for us. > - While the current form of the "contract" would be legally binding if > signed, I would prefer a proper contract that looks a bit less like an > order or confirmation form. The current document is a bit a mess of > their standard form and various special clauses added to some parts. I do not understand this, can you provide an example, please? Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpOu3RpIm2vp.pgp
Description: PGP signature