[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] budget and number of attendees



On 06/09/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Darst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the budget.  Has anyone synced the number of people
> we are planning to pay for with the number of attendees?

Yes, I updated the budget a couple of days ago. Including 121 persons
(sponsored accommodation) + 21 persons (prof. and corporate registration).
> The budget lists income from prof/corp people.  Thus, we can look at
> the total cost of all rooms anyone asks for (we don't need to separate
> sponsored from unsponsored when deciding how many rooms we need to pay
> for).  However, some people are requesting rooms and they are not
> corporate, professional, or sponsored.  These people may not know they
> will be expected to give us money.  If they will give us money, it
> isn't included in the budget.  It is likely a lot of them will decide
> they don't want our accom once they are asked to pay.  What are we
> doing about this category?
You are right and I think not all of the team and even less of the
participants were really aware of. I would say that we should write them
and ask, whether they want accommodation from us or look on their own
for their place to sleep.
I'd suggest to wait till reconfirmation ends and we have concrete
numbers how much accommodation would be.
> Here http://debconf-data.alioth.debian.org/stats/rooms-by-date-2.txt
> we see the maximum number of rooms asked for debcamp is around 75
> (average more like 60) and for debconf it is around 175.
>
> If we exclude the basic, without sponsored accommodation peolpe, that
> drops to:  around 65 for debcamp, around 130 for debconf.
>
> So, there are around 40 people we need to deal with in the "middle"
> category who we should make sure they know they need to pay (and
> ideally putting them into professional) or removing them from
> accommodation.
>
> A similar analysis could be done for food, but since that costs less,
> and hopefully we can pay per actual person, that is less important.
>
> - Richard
>


Reply to: