Re: [Debconf-team] not a registration fee, but...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 22/10/12 20:45, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Daniel Pocock dijo [Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:39:38PM +0200]:
>> I understand that there is not widespread support for the
>> registration fee concept at face value (...) The main benefit is
>> that DebConf can ask people to `find their own sponsor' before
>> asking DebConf to `sponsor' them. (...) Some of these potential
>> funding sources might not give money as a DebConf sponsor, nor
>> would they give the money if they thought the person could attend
>> for free.
>>
>> The only negative issue is that people may see the fee and not
>> come at all.
>
> My issue with a registration fee is on principle. We organize a
> DebConf because it gives value to Debian. Important work is done
> there. Most attendees do pay a sensible cost to be there — Besides
> the travel fees (some of which we sponsor), we all pay with our
> volunteer time. Some won't have a family vacation because they
> devote that time to DebConf. Some are losing money because they
> work as contractors. Some are lucky and just have to face
> accumulation of work.
>
> Going to DebConf is not a vacation. It is an investment. We all
> work hard, each on their own area. I do not think we should
> insinuate there is a charge for being part of this.
Just to be clear: I agree with the principle of that. But if we
advertise a fee, people can use that as a justification to claim
funding from various sources.
Of course, anyone could just apply to have the fee waived and in
practice things would work the way they do now. But it wouldn't be
presented that way on the web site.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=Re15
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: