Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp contract, 2012-09-27
On 12/10/12 13:49, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2012, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/12 19:28, Luca Capello wrote:
>>
>>> Here a resume of the problems, please correct me if I am wrong or if I
>>> have missed something:
>>>
> AFAICS this list is right.
>
>
>>> Given the current situation, we need clearer answers from them, so if
>>> the list above is all I have to ask I will do that next week.
>>>
> Please do, Luca!
>
>
>>> The fact
>>> that we will there for the BSP on Oct 27-28 means that we could even
>>> discuss further at that time.
>>>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>> There are two other ways to discuss this with them:
>>
>> - tell them how our sponsorship works - ask them `what if we only have
>> 120k and not 160k by July 2013?'. Would they refuse to accept us
>> completely? Would they allow us to stay less days, or cut out the
>> catering for the DebCamp week, for example? Would they view it as a
>> breach of contract and sue us for the difference based on the 90%
>> cancellation penalty?
>>
> this sounds reasonable.
>
>
>> - another approach: ask them if they will agree to an escrow agreement
>> instead of the 3x20k installments. Sponsors will put the money in
>> escrow. The money is only released to Le Camp if we hit the 160k
>> target. If the target is not reached, money goes back to the sponsors.
>> That way no sponsors can lose their money if we don't hit the target.
>>
> I don't this this is a way we should propose. And I also don't think sponsors
> will want to know about our internal problems and I dont want to tell sponsors
> about them... so rather not.
>
>
>
We would not necessarily have to tell our sponsors about such an arrangement
Even if we did give these details to the sponsor, it may only be
discussed with the sponsor if they explicitly ask about what steps are
taken to manage financial risk
The finance or audit departments in some bigger companies may look at
such arrangements as a positive feature.
Reply to: