Re: [Debconf-team] reports from Le Camp "BSP", part 6: trust + seeing is believing
On 14/11/12 15:56, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:34:39AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>> For several of us, it is quite possible to make this choice
>>
>> We have to remember the people who don't have the option to pay and
>> people who contribute so much to Debian that it is just not right to ask
>> them to pay.
>
> I'm perfectly aware that this is not possible for everybody. The
> rationale of my mail was to give a hint that there might be some people
> who have the choice could voluntarily (yes, we *definitely* should not
> ask them to pay) simply choose for this option to help out with budget
> issues to enable others coming as well.
Yes, I wasn't suggesting you wanted to extrapolate the concept and
impose it on other people.
However, Richard's budget suggests that in some scenarios (e.g. if we
keep DebCamp and if we only raise the same money that was raised for
DebConf12), nobody will be sponsored/everybody will have to pay.
>> If enough of these people don't come, if they choose to attend other
>> conferences or participate intermittently over IRC, it could undermine
>> DebConf, as people are the most important part of an event. Then the
>> people who did pay haven't got such a good deal.
>
> I think you totally missinterpreted my intention. My intention was to
> enable people who can not pay to join because the needed amount for them
> does not need to be spend for me.
Once again, I was only hinting at the worst case scenario raised by
Richard: that everybody might have to pay something, and we don't even
know how much. In that scenario, people like you and I would be able to
attend, but maybe not other people.
>> Instead of the survey suggestion, if we could ask people who share
>> Andreas' feelings to make some kind of PGP-signed pledge to pay the
>> professional fee, that may allow us to measure just how much of this
>> revenue can be safely included in the budget forecast.
>
> I admit I do anticipate some heavy reaction if we would ask people for
> following this idea. We should be prepared for the very same arguing
> you did above and I don't know whether such action would qualify as
> "asking" people to do so (which we should not as I said above). I admit
> when I sended my mail I was surely relying in the idea that some others
> might follow (if not this would not help that much budget-wise).
> However, it might be better to set up some list of "volunteer
> professionals" or whatever you might like to call (and you are right
> this should be based on a GPG signature) were we could carefully direct
> people to. In this aspect my plan was a bit half-baken.
Everything has to be half-baked before it is fully baked, so it is good
that you shared this idea and maybe it can be extended - I'd be
interested to hear what other people think about the concept.
Do you possibly want to draft an email calling for such pledges, and it
can be discussed at the next meeting?
Should we ask people to pledge the marginal cost (about 300 CHF), the
professional fee (about 600 CHF), or just ask each person to pledge "I'm
willing to pay up to XXX francs if it can't be avoided"?
Reply to: