Re: [Debconf-team] Minutes meeting with Le Camp, Thursday 25-10-2012
Hi Michele
Thanks for talking to them again. I have a few questions though. I would
really very much like to do DebConf at Le Camp because I still think
it's the ideal location.
Michele Cane <michele.cane@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> We just came back from the meeting with Mr. Pianaro and below you can
> find the minutes also available at:
> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Meetings/20121025
>
> Please do not start a new infinite thread about them. Let's wait for the
> Interlaken meeting (tomorrow) and during the BSP in Le Camp starting on
> Saturday 27th morning together with the other present people we will
> update the comparison on the wiki:
> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/VenueComparison
>
> Please note that Le Camp is waiting for an answer on Monday 29th.
What happens if we don't sign by Monday? Is there room to restart the
negotiations (eg. for a shorter DebConf) or are they just no longer
interested in this case.
>
> Cheers,
> Michele and Luca
>
> ===================================================
> = Meeting Le Camp 20121025 (heiserhorn and gismo) =
>
> == General discussion ==
> * They likes the project.
> * They do not like the idea of other venues investigation at this time
> of the discussion.
Because they feel betrayed or because they feel there is still room for
negotations or because they just don't understand that we cannot afford
their current offer?
> * Many contract changes over time.
> * They think they understand the problem we could have faced.
> * Optic fibre investment (100k CHF).
> * Changing general conditions needs "Conseil de fondation" as it was
> done in the past.
What does this mean? Do they consider this an option to negotiate a
better contract? Is there a possibility to get better conditions if we
directly talk to the Consel de fondation?
> * They think the contract is already very precise.
> * We can take the 34 CHF meal option for everyone everyday.
> * We can send 1 day before that there are N people less to dinner (to
> avoid wasting).
Does this also mean that we don't have to pay for these N people or is
this just to not waste food? From the answer below I think that it does
NOT mean we pay less, but I may be misunderstanding.
> * Tolerance for planned meals vs. effective meals is within 10-20 people
> (announced the day before).
> * They will try to check with nearby organisations for sponsorship.
>
> == Answers to our questions ==
> * Final date for contract signing
> 2012-10-22 (now next Monday)
> * Possibility to shorten the contract to decrease its (high) price
> (which we should anyway try to negotiate more)
> Not possible with this contract. With another contract will be more
> expensive (per day).
I'm quite surprised by this as their current offer does not contain any
discount on their regular prices. The minimum price of 4880 is only 20
CHF lower than if you add the prices for the individual houses from the
conditions générales. The meals are exactly the same price as in their
official price list. So I don't see how this could be even more
expensive. Or do I miss any discount?
Gaudenz
> * Cancellation fee too high, based on a full-board price, while only
> accommodation should be considered (the minimum amount to pay)
> Conditions Générales #2
> * Detailed deadlines for cancellation to be included in the contract
> Will send Conditions Générales with the contract
> * Cooking by ourselves option
> No
> * Effective meals
> No
> * Lunch option every day
> OK (15600 CHF less)
> * List of buildings
> Condition Générales #3, but will send a more detailed version
> * Costs list
> Check the first offer in SVN
> * No breakfast
> No
> * Accommodation only
> No
> * Recyclable glasses (like Paleo), so no beer bottle
> Yes
>
> Conditions Générales:
> http://www.lecamp.ch/pdf/conditions.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: