Re: [Debconf-team] reports from Le Camp "BSP", part 6: trust + seeing is believing
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:08:42PM +0100]:
> > I admit I do anticipate some heavy reaction if we would ask people for
> > following this idea. We should be prepared for the very same arguing
> > you did above and I don't know whether such action would qualify as
> > "asking" people to do so (which we should not as I said above). I admit
> > when I sended my mail I was surely relying in the idea that some others
> > might follow (if not this would not help that much budget-wise).
> > However, it might be better to set up some list of "volunteer
> > professionals" or whatever you might like to call (and you are right
> > this should be based on a GPG signature) were we could carefully direct
> > people to. In this aspect my plan was a bit half-baken.
>
> Everything has to be half-baked before it is fully baked, so it is good
> that you shared this idea and maybe it can be extended - I'd be
> interested to hear what other people think about the concept.
>
> Do you possibly want to draft an email calling for such pledges, and it
> can be discussed at the next meeting?
>
> Should we ask people to pledge the marginal cost (about 300 CHF), the
> professional fee (about 600 CHF), or just ask each person to pledge "I'm
> willing to pay up to XXX francs if it can't be avoided"?
I thank and welcome Andreas' mail, and am joyous we will again have a
chance to meet. However, such pledges have no place IMO. Many people
know we are facing a tough budget, and we should, yes, make clear to
attendees we could use their help. But requiring such pledges (and
making them public or semi- even more) is off-limits.
And even if somebody usually comes as a professional, and pledges to
do so again, but cannot do it in the end (that is, before the final
timeframe for sponsored accomodation)... Well, we will not demand them
to. Even if they had blood-signed a GPG-signed document.
Reply to: