Re: [Debconf-team] my "final" analysis of budget before today's meeting
On 07/11/12 09:40, Richard Darst wrote:
> Le camp won't bankrupt us. Even under the worst projections, we can
> simply reduce the number of sponsored attendees, which reduces the
> food cost. At worst case (not that it would be here), we could pay
> only the forfait, and have a number of attendees trending to zero
> and keep our expenses to the ~70000--80000 range. Clearly, this is
> not a good since it mean spending a lot of money for not much gain.
Just to clarify that point - we would not be `technically' bankrupt, but
we would spend 80,000 CHF of money from sponsors and Debian for an event
where few people come because they are deterred by the demand to pay
registration fees and Swiss prices for meals.
Such a low attendance would be similar to bankruptcy, because sponsors
for DC14 will look at the DC13 report with a lot of suspicion. If any
of them actually show up at Le Camp and find the place empty, they might
regard it as a fraud.
> On the other hand, there are other hand options on the table, which
> have a smaller fixed cost (forfait, minimum number of people). There
> is at least Interlaken, and Daniel may have even been investigating
> other options more recently. Compared to le camp, these options have
There is another option that could potentially be supported by the Swiss
team at an even lower cost per person. It was hinted at in IRC recently.
Before I put that forward, I want to know what the metric is for
success: are we looking for the venue that hosts the most number of
sponsored attendees for the same amount of money? Are we all united on
getting what is best for the people of Debian rather than working within
our comfort zone and political boundaries?
> ~~~
> Data:
>
> le camp cost = 95 kCHF + 225 CHF * attendee_weeks
> interlaken cost = 50 kCHF + 350 CHF * attendee_weeks
>
> These are approximate, but get the point across. interlaken has the
> potential for _both_ numbers to go down, le camp, not so much unless
> attendees go to (practically nonexistant) other food services. The
> equivalence point is around 360 person-weeks (camp+conf) and
> independent of the venue-independent overhead costs. We are unlikely
> to get this many person-weeks total.
>
> The exact line-items do not matter too much beyond the above summary,
> but maybe I can update the spreadsheet.
>
> ~~~~
>
> So, in short, the question can't really be "can we afford le camp" but
> instead "are the benefits of le camp worth the fewer number of
> attendees, given the risk of limited money?" I hope the meeting
> tomorrow can be productive.
>
> I will be around tomorrow (I hope) but don't want to get too involved
> in the debate itself, since it is not a good use of my time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Richard
>
>
> p.s. As for the question "why change the venue if it was decided": I
> purposely stayed out of selection. But I am under the impression that
> le camp was selected due to the promise of large amounts of
> sponsorship, early (before now). Since that hasn't come to fruition
> before contracts need to be signed, it's reasonable to me to
> reevaluate options. It is very typical for the exact plan to change.
>
Reply to: