Hi all,
thanks Gaudenz for this proposal!
Le mardi, 15 janvier 2013 23.01:12, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
> * Do we want to sell the better beds at all?
> While some of us would like to keep money completely out of DebConf
> provided accomodation nobody has come up with an alternative proposal
> yet. I think there is more or less consensus that it's unfortunate that
> we have to do this, but the best way to actually allocate the more
> comfortable beds is to sell them.
I have argued in favour of this idea in this thread already, but to summarize
it differently, I think we have to do a "first come first served" booking
system in any case. Then remains the question of selling and I think that is
is a good way to "make some money" out of these different categories. As I
explained already, all beds (besides maybe the big dormitories) provide
"suitable accomodation" so the additional comfort doesn't really have a reason
to come for free.
> * How should the bed selling work in conjunction with the professional
> fee?
> It was suggested several times that the professional fee and the
> accomodation and food costs should be separated. To do this we need to
> define the individual prices for each item. I suggest that we define
> three prices (attendence fee per week, food per day (for 3 meals) and
> accomodation costs per night).
I think (but without much conviction) that the "professional fee" should
include accomodation in "non-dormitories" beds. By doing that we must also put
the focus on the fact that "professional fee" implies supporting the
_conference_ financially, not acquiring rights for upper accomodation
qualities.
Then these attendees would need to pay the additional fee to get the more
comfortable accomodation. With the possibility to host themselves in hotels,
this means they can either pay a small additional amount to be hosted on-site
in more comfortable accomodation, or a bigger additional amount to get a hotel
room.
> * Which beds should be sold?
> Depending on the definition of a "more comfortable" bed more or less
> beds can be sold at all. It's quite obvious to me that we can't ask for
> the same amount for each of these beds. Depending on the cut of point
> between 48 (all single/double rooms) and 155 (all non sleeping-bag beds)
> can be sold.
Given [0], I would split the thing in five categories (names to be changed,
but this is an attempt at naming these in a neutral way):
* "Iron"
all rooms with >= 20 persons: 78 beds
We would allow allocate these last and people with sponsored
accomodation would be allowed to go there if they want.
For non-sponsored, this would be 14 CHF/night.
* "Nickel"
all sleeping bag rooms with < 20 persons and > 2 : 81 beds
This would be the standard sponsored accomodation. The "value" of this for
non-sponsored accomodation would need to be defined, let's put it at
17 CHF/night for now.
* "Zinc"
all nordique rooms with >= 5 persons : 76 beds
all sleeping bag rooms with <= 2 persons: 12 beds
This would be the "small price increase" category: +5 CHF/night
* "Aluminium"
all nordique rooms with < 5 persons and > 1: 75 beds
This would be the "bigger price increase" category: +10 CHF/night
* "Copper"
all nordique rooms with <= 1 persons: 4 beds
+20 CHF/night.
(Mentionned for sake of completeness)
[0] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/LeCamp/Rooms
Please understand the above repartition as a basis for discussion (and don't
shoot the messenger, eh…). Also the increases are not meant as cumulative, but
all come on top of "Nickel".
> * Who should be eglible to buy more comfortable beds?
> The question is if persons paying the professional fee should have
> priority in any way. Either with a requirement that you pay professional
> if you want to buy one of these beds or by giving them priority if there
> is a shortage.
"First come first served" without a prioritisation on attendee category sounds
the easiest and fairest way.
This also helps separating the "price one pays to attend the conference" and
the "accomodation" questions.
> Another aspect is if Debian contributors should have preference over
> accompanying persons. Would it be acceptable if a family occupies a 4
> bed room if there is more demand than available beds?
The problem here is that we'll know only late if the LeCamp accomodation will
be fully booked or not. In the "not fully booked" case, then it's better to
fill empty beds with accompanying perons than not at all; in the "fully
booked" option, then the accompanying persons (non-"conference attendees")
would use beds which would better be allocated to "conference attendees" (as
we are primarily organising a conference, not a family gathering).
The best solution seems to ask potential groups ("attendee" + relatives) to
book early and then inform them at a later (but not too late) date if it's
okay or not. We should of course be very clear about these deadlines and
information dates. This would essentially mean there's a period of
"candidating for rooms" and then "we" decide on the allocation, at a later
stage. It's very imperfect but I think it's quite fair.
> * Prices
> We need to define the price for the various items:
> - Beds (for each category)
Proposal above.
> - Food
I think we should sponsor food but request to "non-sponsored" to pay the price
we have to pay to LeCamp: we wouldn't do a benefit or a loss on food. This
would be 34.- CHF per person per day afair.
> - Professional and corporate attendence fee
> I would like to delegate this to the "money/budget people". It would be
> nice to have a proposal for the next meeting. There was also an idea
> floating around to make an auction. While if we belive in the
> traditional economic theory this would be the fairest solution (for
> their definition of fair), this is IMO not practicable.
I have no idea for reasonable prices, but I think that what matters is to be
clear that these fees are for "attending the conference" and don't give any
special rights for "better" accomodation, food, or whatever.
> I'd like to gather the feedback from team members to these questions
> before the meeting next Thursday. So that we ideally can already decide
> about some of these questions there.
Aye, sorry…
I hope to still have brought some useful points in the conversation ! Cheers,
OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.