Re: [Debconf-team] Decisions about Le Camp
On 22/11/12 12:04, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> IMO the most important topic for tonights meeting is the decision about
> how to proceed with Le Camp. We promised them to have a decision by the
> end of November. So to be fair and keep that promise we have to decide
> now. We need some more days to get the budget approved and to have a
> board meeting of the DC13 association. As legally this association will
> sign the contract.
>
> I had a long phone call with Philipp Hug yesterday and we came up with
> three options:
>
> We consider the financial part as the only major issue. The other issues
> that we discussed on the mailinglist are in our opinion either not
> important enough or are mostly details and need to be refined later.
> What will be fixed is the duration and the prices. The other things are
> in our opinion either fine or can be refined (like how exactly has dish
> washing has to be done). On the other hand bringing up these topics
> again with Le Camp will seriously annoy them at this point. And I can
> very well understand that.
>
> A) We agree to the Le Camp contract as it is now. While there is still a
> fixed amount for accomodation we now have quite some flexibility wrt
> meals as we only have to order full pension for 80% of the
> guest-nights. With this I'm quite sure we won't have to pay any meals
> that are not actually eaten.
>
> B) We propose to Le Camp a shortened contract and tell them that this we
> can't afford more and that we won't come to their site if they don't
> agree. In this case I propose to shorten to the period of Saturday
> 10th August (or maybe even 11th) to Sunday 18th August. To make it
> most likely that they accept the shortening they have to be able to
> rent the days we are freeing now to other groups. Most of their
> groups either book a week-end, a full work week (Monday-Friday) or a
> whole week. So if we intend to start in the middle of a week this is
> bad for them. The risk with this option is that we don't konw how Le
> Camp will react. My gut feeling is that the chances they accept this
> is slightly below 50%. On the other hand if they accept it's the best
> outcome for us (at least IMO), but it's a risky game.
>
> C) We decide to drop Le Camp and to find another venue. While this
> avoids the costs of Le Camp this has considerable other costs. I
> think there is agreement among the locals that more than 10% cheaper
> is just not possible. But we will also loose a lot of motivation.
> Unless we find something very similar to Le Camp, this won't be the
> DebConf we presented in our bid. While some argue that the decision
> was just to go to Switzerland I don't agree with this. The decision
> was for the bid we presented. Otherwise all the questions and
> discussions about Le Camp during the decision meeting don't make any
> sense. Finding a venue that is both acceptable and 10% cheaper is
> not easy. My estimation is that the sponsorship money we won't get
> because we have to find another venue will about eat up the 10% gain.
>
> In our opinion we have to take a decision now and should absolutely not
> postpone. If no decision is taken, I will take a vacation from Debconf
> organisation until at least the end of this year. The emotional stress
> of the current situation is just too much for me and I think that I
> better spend my time on other things in this case. While I have a
> preference for one option, I can live with any decision as long as there
> is a decision now.
>
> Finally I would like to give my personal opinion about the options:
> I think the decision should be guided by two things. First we have to
> make sure that we won't go bancrupt and that we will have some sort of
> DebConf even in a worst case scenario. Second we should make our
> decision based on the most probably outcome of our sponsorship efforts.
> It would be very bad if we decide to drop Le Camp now, then find another
> venue which is a bit cheaper and more flexible, but otherwise less
> attractive and in April 2013 come to the conculsion that we now would
> have enough money to pay for a great DebConf at Le Camp. If we wait too
> long we have the risk of ending up with a suboptimal solution just to
> avoid any risks.
>
> For the first point the current budget, which is mostly a worst
> case budget, shows that this is satisfied. I'm sure that we will get
> those 100k sponsorship money with how sponsorship acquisition proceeds
> currently.
>
> For the second point I think that with putting all our efforts in
> finding enogh money we will also have enough for a great (ie. mostly
> sponsored accomodation and food, including daytrip, ...) DebConf at Le
> Camp. I'm personally willing make that effort if I know that it's for
> the DebConf that I enjoy organizing. But if the situation remains
> unclear I'm not willing to put any further effort into this. The current
> status of fundraising looks very promising to me and we already have a
> lot more than I expected 4 weeks ago. And still large recurring sponsors
> did not answer and we have many open queries and some encouraging
> preliminary answers. With this in mind I think getting 150k seems
> realistic (If I had to place a bet now I would bet on this amount),
> everything above needs some luck but is not completely impossible.
>
> Conclusion: My preference is A over B over C.
>
Just in response to Gaudenz's points, here is a summary of the
counter-arguments that are floating about:
- bankruptcy issue: Richard has used words like `small' and `tiny' on
several times to describe the likely size of the conference - so while
bankruptcy is no longer the threat, the cost/benefit ratio seems to be
slanted towards cost rather than long term benefit. Regular sponsors
will notice if the conference is `tiny', and this may hurt fundraising
for future years.
- getting the contract details right: if Le Camp are so keen to get a
signature, why haven't they compromised on all those things that are
just little `details'. If they can't compromise now to get a signature
on the contract, then it should not be assumed that they will compromise
later. There have been many email and IRC discussions about the finer
points of the contract, but no final version of the contract has been
presented. So if today's meeting endorses Le Camp, it appears the
contract terms will be stuck in their default state.
- urgency: fundraising has been going well without having the Le Camp
contract formally locked in. Other venues have not imposed the same
urgency as Le Camp (e.g. Fiesch doesn't even take bookings more than 12
months in advance, Jungfrau Park's marketing manager is on vacation
until December)
Out of the above three issues, the people wanting Le Camp to be endorsed
could probably address the 2nd point, contract details, before the
meeting (e.g. by preparing an alternate version of the contract that can
be endorsed by the meeting and then presented to Le Camp)
Reply to: