Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp Accomodation - Bed selling and professional fee
On 17/01/13 15:27, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 17 janvier 2013 13.33:47, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
>
>> A few other ideas come to mind:
>>
>> - One single room to be awarded to the sponsorship team as an incentive for
>> best fundraiser
>>
>> - One single room as a reward for the 'runner up' in the Debconf14 contest,
>> as an extra incentive to encourage people to bring bids through to the
>> final round
>>
>> - One single room for the person who helps bring Penta into retirement
>>
> I think all these three ideas are terribly wrong: we would be using our
> "DebConf" privileges to push insider goals: why would "put Penta into
> retirement" give a single room but "released Wheezy" not? As I understand
>
Can you just help me to understand where I went wrong: which part of my
communication suggests that anyone would _not_ get appropriate
accommodation, and the release team in particular?
> DebConf's history, we have avoided a prioritisation of attendees' accomodation
> in the past and I think it is _good_ to not have "DDs maintaining core
> packages in 4-star hotels and random contributors in the crappy camping"
> (exxagerating the point, of course). That said, we _are_ doing a
> prioritisation of attendees when granting travel sponsoring, but it is a
> different situation as it's a binary decision: either you get it or not; it's
> not a comfort-related decision.
>
>
How does the travel sponsorship differ from the room allocation in
DebConf13 though? Don't we have finite limitations in each case - beds
for one, budget for the other?
> Granted, we should certainly find ways to reward benevolent work but I
> definitely think that "you get a better room if you do /that/ [for DebConf]"
> is the wrong tool for rewarding work and benevolent involvement.
>
>
Did I suggest that was the optimal way to allocate accommodation? In
comparison, are you saying that giving the better beds to the people
willing to pay is significantly better than giving them to people who
make a long term improvement (e.g. replacing Penta), or is there another
alternative that you are proposing that is the optimal solution here?
> (I think we [and this is not specific to DebConf-within-Debian] are not very
> good at rewarding and/or acknowledging involvement, actions and work, but
> that's another topic).
>
> Furthermore, although I acknowledge that there are significant differences
> between bed types, I think we should also not put extra emotional weight on
> these differences. By sticking to showing the facts as we know them, we will
> avoid most (emotional) reactions to these differences. That's also why the
> price increase should be mostly proportional to these differences.
>
>
>> and also, we should consider making sure a private room with bathroom is
>> available, on request, and without any prohibitive charges, to anybody
>> with a medical condition, injury, disability or pregnancy
>>
> I think we should handle that as case-by-case "special requests", be open to
> these and avoid any bureaucracy involving defining a set of criterias, etc.
>
>
So where I wrote "on request", you agree that is much the same thing as
where you wrote "special requests" and we are in agreement on this point?
The only thing that is not clear yet is how we make sure these "special
requests" can actually be fulfilled when it appears that there may be
only a very small number of rooms that are suitable for people in these
categories. Would you suggest that we give these people a deadline
(e.g. 30 June) to make special requests and keep some of the rooms with
bathroom in reserve up to that deadline or some alternative process?
Reply to: