Re: [Debconf-team] reading thru the meeting logs...

[micah anderson <micah@riseup.net>]

David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:

> micah anderson <micah@riseup.net> writes:
>
>> I want to emphasis a bit what Moray wrote above. If travel sponsorship
>> is eliminated because other things are too expensive, that results in a
>> Debconf where only people who can afford to go can go. It raises the
>> economic minimum bar to a level where we cut people off from attending
>> and that results in a completely different Debconf than we have ever had
>> before. This shouldn't be something that is just waved away so
>> trivially. 
>
> In my experience, travel sponsorship has been conditional on having
> funds available for the rest of debconf. So in practice, saying that we
> budget 0 for travel sponsorship until the rest of debconf is funded is
> is not that radical a change.

While that is true, and I do not disagree with you, nevertheless it
misses the point. If from the beginning the idea is to eliminate it for
the express purpose of making way for a more expensive debconf, that is
significantly different than the goal of doing our best to minimize
overall debconf costs so we can both afford it, not go into debt *and*
provide travel sponsorship.

If out of the gate we start from the idea that there will *not* be
travel sponsorship, but at some later date we can evaluate and change
that position, then expenses that might otherwise have been reduced or
eliminated are accepted as 'ok' because we have the money now.... and
then when it comes time to re-evaluate the budget because its travel
sponsorship deadline, guess what? Not a big surprise, but there isn't
any money for travel sponsorship! I think we all see that coming with
the current state of the proposed up-front costs and budget being
discussed here... its what makes setting aside travel sponsorship all
the more attractive.

I see the attempt to set aside travel sponsorship as a foregone
conclusion, or "a setup" (if you will permit me) for later. Later it
will be too late, and I think we all know that *now* and we should just
attack the problem that we are aware of now... Later comittments will have
been made for money that we cannot back out of.

> Of course, there are unfortunate side effects of waiting until the last
> minute to confirm offers of travel sponsorship, but I think confirming
> budget for travel sponsorship 5 months before debconf (as ana proposes
> in a different thread) would actually be a big improvement over the
> (recent) past.

I totally agree about that.

--