On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:47:15PM +0100, Philipp Hug wrote: > As the DPL has the final oversight how Debian spends it's money and > how the Debian brand is used, I'm also asking him for approval of the > budget As mentioned before, I dug into the budget, related documents, some debconf-team archives and meeting logs, as well as sought clarifications from Philipp on the points that weren't immediately clear to me. I've considered 2 different versions of the budget, the one announced by Darst around November 20th as a safe/"conservative" budget, and the one announced submitted yesterday by Philipp as a reasonable/non-optimistic budget. I'm well aware they're both *tentative* budgets and that there might (and will) be fluctuations. That's the deal with early budget approval anyhow. There is a risk of money loss with the proposed budget (e.g. in the extreme case we cancel DebConf). The entity of the potential damage varies with the moment where we cancel and many other factors. Comparing with current Debian reserves and with the expected large future expenses I'm aware of, I conclude that we can afford that risk. Obviously, I expect all of you to work _against_ that risk. I've found 2 important missing items in the budget, and confirmed with Philipp that they've not been considered, namely: day by day venue cleaning and dish washing. I think that they should be put in, I don't think it's reasonable to put that burden on attendees. I've looked at tentative cost figures to pay the corresponding personnel with Philipp and I think they can be fit into the budget, by either making economies, raising more money (from sponsors or other means), or even (as a *last resort*) by taking a deficit for this reason. I understand that the kind of room accommodation is a limiting factor and that some people will decide not to come for that reason. I'm unconvinced that such a limiting factor is worse than others we have faced in the past, including the choice of DebConf location in the first place (yes, I do think they are in the same ballpark). On this point, I'm very much in agreement with Steve's mail [1]. But that comes with a "price", which I think must be "paid". Namely, and FWIW, I agree that attendees should be prominently informed at registration time about the kinds of accommodation available, be put in the condition of expressing their preferences, including that of not coming if the minimum lodgement standard they're looking for is not available. [1]: http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121126.001203.0a6b0582.en.html Modulo all the above, which I'm confident you will take into account, I'm happy to approve the proposed budget. My reading of the last meeting is that Philipp is already empowered to make, tomorrow, the needed negotiations with LeCamp, and possibly sign the contract for a 1 week(-ish) period. If he wants to subject that to my budget approval, that has happened above. If he wants to subject his actions to my more general approval, I hereby declare my trust in Philipp to implement the last line of the most recent DebConf team meeting: #agree consensus for the LeCamp final negotiation is: Sign one week if possible; if not negotiate the best deal you can for the DebCamp week. If only two weeks is agreeable, last-resort is a phone call with DebConf chairs. If, in addition to the above, Philipp wants to subject his actions to preventive chairs approval, he is obviously free to do so too. Some further thoughts on the contract: - I'm sad to give up all together the idea of a week long DebCamp. But analyzing the costs, it does not seem wise at this point to sign for a 2 week long contract. But it'd be nice to keep open the possibility of renting individual buildings for the DebCamp week, though. - I take that the intended meaning of the tent renting option in contract is to implement a dispensation as per art.15 of conditionsE. If so, that point of the contract should really be worded as a dispensation. Similarly, I think we should try really hard to negotiate a better deal for the limit after which we are formally allowed to go tents. I don't think it will change much in practice, but it will give us more flexibility (and therefore more sane-mindedness). I have shared some other comments about the negotiation with Philipp, but I don't think it is appropriate to share them here before tomorrow. Hope this helps, -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature