On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 08:29:58PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 06:20:35PM +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote: > > If it isn't in the contract, we can not know for certain we'll be able > > to camp. The responsible of Le Camp has a board behind of him who can > > overrule him or he can decide for whatever reason he is finally not > > happy with it. This is very clear in the "conditions générales". > I admit that when reading this list I have the feeling that non-Germans > start showing behaviour Germans are famous for while native Germans stop > taking every single word of such contracts as if graved in stone. That's > a bit funny. I don't find it at all funny that people are willing to sign a contract on behalf of Debian with a 60k CHF cancellation clause, and then take a verbal agreement that we'll be able to use the facilities in the manner we require in direct contradiction to the written contract. The nationality of the people involved doesn't enter into it - this is an irresponsible error in contract negotiation. Even if it works out in the end, it's irresponsible to risk it. You get those kinds of things *in writing* when this kind of money is on the line. If you really have a good relationship with the counterparty, it shouldn't be hard to get a contract modification so that the written contract reflects the agreement. If you can't get a contract modification, it shows what that "good relationship" is actually worth ( : nothing). From reading the minutes of the latest IRC meeting, the predictable response from some people here is that it's not possible to negotiate the contract because it will take too long to get Le Camp to take it back to their committee. I call bullshit on that. If you can't negotiate a fair and equitable contract, you don't sign the contract. It's not so important to have a DebConf that we should bankrupt Debian to hold one, or make it something people are unwilling to attend, or that people will be miserable in attending (e.g., because they discover upon arrival that they won't be able to camp as promised because something else has gone wrong in the meantime and Mr. Pianaro is no longer happy with us and willing to bend the rules). Debian should absolutely be willing to walk away from holding a DebConf *at all* if it can't negotiate suitable terms. I know that's not something the local team ever wants to consider; no local team ever would want to see their tireless efforts result in them *not* hosting a DebConf. But if we're not willing to walk away, that means the decisions are always being made under duress, and that's much worse for us than it would be to skip a DebConf. That said, I'm pleased to see that yesterday's meeting did lead to a compromise regarding trying to book the venue for a shorter period, and not blindly sign the contract that's been offered. I have confidence in this team to do the right thing by DebConf - though from time to time I wish it would converge on consensus more quickly. ;) I just think the team should hear that not putting on a DebConf, if the only other option is to put on a /bad/ DebConf, is not a failure. > > > And people won't be "surrounded by people 24/7", that's again a biased way to > > > put it. > > If the only way you have to be 5min alone is going alone in the forest, I have > > not words... > Thinking back all DebConfs I joined ... hmmm DebConf 3 in Oslo I was in > a hotel with my family - but even there were DebConf people. Sooo > DebConf is actually not the place where you will be *alone* and from all > what I have read here from people who visited Le Camp I do not see a big > difference regarding staying separate from other people to any other > DebConf. From my perspective the only way to be alone is to *start* > running with Christian and finally give up after some time - then you > will be alone. "You will pass other people in the hall or meet them at breakfast" is not the same thing as "you will have to share your room with N other people". Different people have different expectations of privacy. I have seen an unfortunate amount of handwaving from folks on this list in response to these concerns when they've been raised. Now, I don't have a clear view of exactly what the accomodation configuration will be at Le Camp, because TTBOMK this information has never been laid out directly on this mailing list; it's possible that people are responding to stale/incomplete information here and as a result, the people in the know are just annoyed at having to deal with such misinformation. But that's not how it comes across on the list - it comes across as the team being dismissive of people's concerns that the proposed accomodation will make them uncomfortable, possibly to the point that they will choose not to attend DebConf as a result. Speaking only for myself, I would not attend a DebConf that required me to share a room with 3 random other people. I'm fortunate to have an employer that will send me to DebConf and pay for appropriate accomodations. However, I've also heard it suggested both that DebConf would rely on professional and corporate attendee registration fees to offset costs for other attendees, and that professional/corporate attendees would be given precedence in the better (== fewer people per room) accomodations, and I'm skeptical that these various suggestions have all been sanity-checked against one another, or against the expectations of folks who do attend DebConf as professional attendees, or against the consequences to overall DebConf attendance of giving sponsored attendees only the "worst" accomodations. At the moment, my expectation is that I will be attending DebConf 13, but *not* staying at Le Camp due to scarcity of suitable accomodation. It's not clear to me what impact, if any, such decisions have on the overall planning of the DebConf team. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature