Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp contract, 2012-09-27
Luca Capello <luca@pca.it> writes:
> Hi there!
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:11:41 +0200, Philipp Hug wrote:
>> Don't you think it would make more sense to meet Mr. Pianaro after the BSP?
>> So we could discuss the current issues and agree on what we want/can agree
>> on before bothering him again.
>
> Have I missed something? I thought that the problems with the current
> contract were clear:
>
> <mid:[🔎] 87haq0q5ow.fsf@gismo.pca.it>
> <http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121011.172815.29c73ee7.en.html>
>
> IMHO we should go there *before* the BSP so we can compare both options,
> Interlaken and Le Camp. But if the general voice is that we should do
> that after the BSP, then let Michele and myself wait: please however
> state that *now*, so I can cancel the meeting.
No, please go there! ;-) I think the message cited above lists the most
important issues. I have a few more minor suggestions:
- Possibility to only rent part of Le Camp for Debcamp. This is not
optimal, but maybe better than shortening. While we need the main
rooms during (part) of DebCamp for setup, we don't need all the
"sleeping houses". This option could also be combined with shortening
the whole thing.
- Option of Le Camp sponsoring DebConf. If they reduce the price, we
could list them as sponsors. I don't have high hopes that they agree
to this, but we could at least try.
- While the current form of the "contract" would be legally binding if
signed, I would prefer a proper contract that looks a bit less like an
order or confirmation form. The current document is a bit a mess of
their standard form and various special clauses added to some parts.
Gaudenz
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: