Re: [Debconf-team] Decisions about Le Camp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi Gaudenz,
I understand your comments below and the meeting is the place for
debating them - however, if there is to be a decision, are we still
waiting for a final answer from Canton Neuchatel?
It would seem foolish to sign a contract before we maximise any
funding from the local tourism/economic development budget.
If they have not given an answer, then maybe the meeting should be
pushed back a week.
Regards,
Daniel
On 22/11/12 15:15, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> writes:
>
>> Just in response to Gaudenz's points, here is a summary of the
>> counter-arguments that are floating about:
>>
>> - bankruptcy issue: Richard has used words like `small' and
>> `tiny' on several times to describe the likely size of the
>> conference - so while bankruptcy is no longer the threat, the
>> cost/benefit ratio seems to be slanted towards cost rather than
>> long term benefit. Regular sponsors will notice if the
>> conference is `tiny', and this may hurt fundraising for future
>> years.
>
> You are still thinking in worst case scenarios. While I agree that
> in the worst case we will have a DebConf that is small (about as
> big as DC12), this is not the most probable outcome. My main
> argument was that the most probable outcome is that we will have a
> quite standard DebConf with 50/280 attendees (see current budget
> variants in SVN).
>>
>> - getting the contract details right: if Le Camp are so keen to
>> get a signature, why haven't they compromised on all those things
>> that are just little `details'. If they can't compromise now to
>> get a signature on the contract, then it should not be assumed
>> that they will compromise later. There have been many email and
>> IRC discussions about the finer points of the contract, but no
>> final version of the contract has been presented. So if today's
>> meeting endorses Le Camp, it appears the contract terms will be
>> stuck in their default state.
>
> Did you actually look at
> dc13/accounting/contracts/Le_Camp/Contrat\ Debconf13\ -\
> 30-10-2012.pdf ? This is not their default contract and as I
> already said I don't think we should count on any compromises. But
> at least around here it's quite normal that you arrange the
> *details* later. I also gave specific examples of what I consider
> fixed and what I consider details to be refined.
>
>>
>> - urgency: fundraising has been going well without having the Le
>> Camp contract formally locked in. Other venues have not imposed
>> the same urgency as Le Camp (e.g. Fiesch doesn't even take
>> bookings more than 12 months in advance, Jungfrau Park's
>> marketing manager is on vacation until December)
>
> So what? No one ever argued that booking flexibility is an
> advantage of Le Camp. What people probably don't realize is that we
> did not just directly jump to Le Camp. When we started the venue
> evaluation in Banja Luka we were open to several possiblities and
> only after looking at least 4 other options (Lausanne, Geneva,
> Zurich and Melchtal) we decided that Le Camp is the best option. We
> also had a quick glance at several other options (like Fiesch) but
> discarded them because they did not seem to fit our needs (too
> expensive, too small, too remote, ...). So it's not like there are
> many options just waiting to be discovered if we decide to restart
> the process. It will be a huge challenge to find something of equal
> quality and price than Le Camp.
>
>>
>> Out of the above three issues, the people wanting Le Camp to be
>> endorsed could probably address the 2nd point, contract details,
>> before the meeting (e.g. by preparing an alternate version of the
>> contract that can be endorsed by the meeting and then presented
>> to Le Camp)
>
> At least for the options I presented the contract that would be
> signed if we take one of the options is quite clear to me. I don't
> think we have to prepare anything. The shortening option would just
> have the dates adjusted.
>
> Gaudenz
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=t086
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: