Hi there! On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:53:34 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Michele Cane <michele.cane@gmail.com> writes: >> We just came back from the meeting with Mr. Pianaro and below you can >> find the minutes also available at: >> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Meetings/20121025 >> >> Please do not start a new infinite thread about them. Let's wait for the >> Interlaken meeting (tomorrow) and during the BSP in Le Camp starting on >> Saturday 27th morning together with the other present people we will >> update the comparison on the wiki: >> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/VenueComparison >> >> Please note that Le Camp is waiting for an answer on Monday 29th. > > What happens if we don't sign by Monday? Replying to Moray as well: I do not know and in a certain sense they were expecting us sign way before, given all the negotiations passed. > Is there room to restart the > negotiations (eg. for a shorter DebConf) or are they just no longer > interested in this case. My feelings are that at this time they are no more interested to start again from scratch. >> * Many contract changes over time. >> * They think they understand the problem we could have faced. >> * Optic fibre investment (100k CHF). >> * Changing general conditions needs "Conseil de fondation" as it was >> done in the past. > > What does this mean? Do they consider this an option to negotiate a > better contract? Is there a possibility to get better conditions if we > directly talk to the Consel de fondation? There is no more place for negotiations and I do not think that they will be happy if we try to shortcut them directly talking to the Conseil de fondation. >> * They think the contract is already very precise. >> * We can take the 34 CHF meal option for everyone everyday. >> * We can send 1 day before that there are N people less to dinner (to >> avoid wasting). > > Does this also mean that we don't have to pay for these N people or is > this just to not waste food? From the answer below I think that it does > NOT mean we pay less, but I may be misunderstanding. The contract does not include (and FWIW it has never included) the exact numbers of meals we have to pay. Instead, we have to provide such numbers 10 days before the exact numbers of meals we want and these numbers can be changed up to 1 day before. These numbers will be on a separate paper, which will be used in the end to do the maths for the final price we have to pay. >> * Tolerance for planned meals vs. effective meals is within 10-20 people >> (announced the day before). >> * They will try to check with nearby organisations for sponsorship. >> >> == Answers to our questions == >> * Final date for contract signing >> 2012-10-22 (now next Monday) >> * Possibility to shorten the contract to decrease its (high) price >> (which we should anyway try to negotiate more) >> Not possible with this contract. With another contract will be more >> expensive (per day). > > I'm quite surprised by this as their current offer does not contain any > discount on their regular prices. The minimum price of 4880 is only 20 > CHF lower than if you add the prices for the individual houses from the > conditions générales. The meals are exactly the same price as in their > official price list. So I don't see how this could be even more > expensive. Or do I miss any discount? As far as I read the contract and the general conditions and as far as I understood from previous meetings with them and the localteam, the discount is in the form of having a minimum amount of location price independent of the number of beds. Which means that we firstly assign all the cheapest beds thus fitting more than the minimum for each single building. As an example, take the contract we have for this week-end's BSP: the price for the Passerelle building is 650.00 CHF for 20 beds, then each extra bed costs 30.00 CHF. Having the whole Camp means that we can first assign other beds not in the Passerelle while still getting the Passerelle for us. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgprDMTQtibEi.pgp
Description: PGP signature