Re: [Debconf-team] non-CHF sponsorship
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 19/11/12 23:23, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> In my experience[1] with this it's almost impossible to be
> prescriptive about this with sponsors in this manner, and therefore
> (a) and (d) are complete non-starters.
I notice both yourself and Brian didn't mention (b) at all
>
> The typical issue is that person A has a budget (in USD / EUR) for
> sponsoring events, and they can offer that. Actual payment is
> handled by their accounting department, so you have to then invoice
> $COMPANY for the agreed amount in USD (/ EUR), which then gets
> passed back to person A for sign-off, and (eventual) payment.
>
In any case, (b) would only work for USD I suspect. How much regular
sponsorship tends to be EUR, or does that only arise for a DebConf in
a eurozone country?
> In some cases there is added complexity when the *actual* payment
> is handled by a second company, and then the real pain begins.
>
> So while you might be able to get the 'small change' amounts of
> sponsorship paid in CHF, or paid in a timely manner so that they
> can be converted to CHF and known, for the big amounts you will
> just have to cope, and you're stuck with (c).
>
> This need not be quite *so* terrifying, however, as to allow for
> 30% change in currency rate. I wouldn't think it likely that
> relative currencies will shift more than 10% in real terms, and as
> they do you will occasionally recalculate your budget shortfall.
I've worked for FX departments in banks for a number of years and I
personally have no confidence predicting any specific rate.
If one of us was clever enough to predict exchange rates in 9 months
from now, then every bank on Wall Street would be offering millions to
work for them as a trader.
So what we really have to do is calculate a budget that works for
worst case scenario (e.g. 30% fluctuation, or maybe even 50%
fluctuation just to be really safe)
> Option (b) is what effectively *does* happen, in that the
> conference happens, everyone tries to make a budget that has a
> small surplus, and over the many years of Debconfs sometimes SPI
> (or equivalent) has had to fund the shortfall and sometimes they
> have received the benefit of a small surplus.
What is different for DebConf13 is that the costs of the conference are
a) higher than ever before
b) extremely rigid (e.g. they want a contract signed yesterday, and
after it is signed, they won't move)
So it is imperative to do whatever is within reason to avoid exchange
rate losses and make accurate predictions about how much more
fundraising is necessary to get across the line.
>
> Cheers, Andrew McMillan.
>
> [1] I've been fairly closely involved in a number of DebConfs, but
> more specifically I also ran sponsorship for LCA for 2010 and
> 2011.
>
> On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 19:11 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> There was some discussion on #debconf-sponsors about sponsors
>> wanting to pay USD instead of CHF.
>>
>> If a sponsor is saying this, it probably means they don't want
>> the uncertainty of exchange rates hitting their budget. So if a
>> large sponsor can't afford that uncertainty, can DebConf?
>>
>> I'd propose that if such agreements are going to be accepted,
>> then it would be on one of these conditions:
>>
>> a) the sponsors pay all the money immediately so we can convert
>> to CHF using current exchange rates
>>
>> or
>>
>> b) SPI or somebody else lends DebConf the USD amount for
>> immediate conversion to CHF, and then the loan is repaid when the
>> sponsor gives the USD money in future
>>
>> or
>>
>> c) the budget needs to include an exchange rate buffer, maybe 30%
>> or even 50% of any foreign currency amounts that are unpaid. So
>> if there is $US50,000 coming in July, we only count that as CHF
>> 35,000 in the revenue forecast
>>
>> or
>>
>> d) sponsor must sign a contract for CHF amount
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Debconf-team
>> mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
>> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
>>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=IXv3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: