Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp contract, 2012-09-27
Luca Capello <luca@pca.it> writes:
> Hi there!
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:30:01 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> Luca Capello <luca@pca.it> writes:
>>> 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.
>
> IMHO given the minimum amount of money per day it does not change
> anything if we rent part of Le Camp. I will ask anyway.
I guess the minimum amount will be lower for a partial rent. After all
they could rent the remaining buildings to other parties. If the minimum
does not change, then indeed there is no point in only renting part of it.
>
>> - 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.
>
> I disagree. Not to mention that this could be used against us: they
> already invested around 100k CHF for the fiber connectivity, mostly
> because it was a good Internet connection (not the crappy ADSL that they
> had before) was a must for us.
>
>> - 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.
>
> I do not understand this, can you provide an example, please?
It has gotten better since the first proposal, but it's still quite a
weird form of contract. Some examples:
- The renting party is not named in the contract at all. A contract
should always state the full *legal* names of both parties. So that
it's clear that this is a contract with the "Fondation Le Camp" and
not with Mr. Pianaro privately.
- The costs are scattered all over the document. It would be nice to
have one section "costs" which clearly states all the costs.
- The object of the rental contract is quite vague: "Tout Le Camp (liste
des batiments ci-jointe)" I have not seen this list yet.
I hope this makes it a bit more clear. If not, just search the web for
model contracts and see the difference yourself.
Gaudenz
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: