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

Re: [Debconf-team] A better budget analysis



Hi

Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

> On Dienstag, 30. Oktober 2012, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>> If I understood right, the 32 sleeping bed dorm is:
>> http://layer-acht.org/fotos/670_Switzerland_DC13-pre/20121027_027_Sm.jpg.61
>> .html
>
> yes
>  
>> > the rest are regular rooms with beds. (though I agree people who pay
>> > should get a 2 or 4 people room, if they want to.)
>> 
>> And what you call "regular rooms with beds" are like:
>> http://layer-acht.org/fotos/670_Switzerland_DC13-pre/20121027_023_Sm.jpg.57
>> .html
>> 
>> With 12 places in bunk beds ?
>
> yes, there are 2 rooms like this, iirc. (and I didnt suggest to put coorp/prof 
> attendees in these big rooms, those should go in 2-4 people rooms - unless 
> they _like_ bigger rooms :)

Thanks to Holger for his replies already. I think in the last days there
was way too much emphasis on the worst rooms of Le Camp. All the beds shown
in these two pictures. About 50% of the beds is much better. The two
pictures linked below show two big rooms with these beds. There are also
smaller rooms with only 2 or 4 beds. Also the quality of the pictures is
not so great. So these are still the worst of the better beds.

http://www.lecamp.ch/communs/batiments.php?id=10&lang=
http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/File:Dorm_nordic.jpg

The 32 person dorm is the only one where people don't have their separated
bed. There is another big dorm with 24 beds. All others are below 15
beds.

So only 1/6 of the beds is really bad. And at least to me they all seem
better or at least equal to the 80 beds in the big tents in Interlaken.
All the other beds available at Balmer's in Interlaken are about the
same quality as the beds at Le Camp.

Also I expect us to fill the two big dorms only on the peak days. So
most of the time the situation there will be better.

Gaudenz

-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~

Reply to: