Le samedi, 19 janvier 2013 21.10:23, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
> > 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.
>
> The two paragraphs above seem to conflict. First you state that
> professional should include accomodation in non-dormitory beds and then
> you say that people would have to pay an additional amount. Can you
> clarify how you think this should work.
Using the below categories, I meant by the above that professional fee would
include "Nickel" hosting. They would "have" to pay an additional amount only
to upgrade to "Zinc" e.g.
> IMO the professional fee should not include any kind of accomodation.
> And there should be an additional professional accomodation fee (per
> night) for those that want to be hosted on site.
As I understand your proposal, this is essentially fully decoupling hosting
and "conference attendance", right?
> > 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".
>
> I like the partition of the different room types. What I don't
> understand is what people would pay for a bed in each of the rooms.
Okay, let me clarify.
> So if someone would be eglible for sponsored accomodation but they want
> an aluminium room they would pay an extra of 10 CHF/night? Or would they
> pay 17 + 10 = 27 CHF?
Formulated differently, what I meant that "sponsored accomodation" is a "17
CHF/night credit". If you take the 17 CHF/night room you wouldn't pay an
additional amount, if you take the 27 CHF/night room you would pay the 10
CHF/night additional amount.
> Or would only persons not eglible for sponsored
> accomodation pay 27 CHF? And would this be the same price if for
> people paying the professional fee? Or would those even be eglible for
> the 10 CHF upgrade price?
I think the prices should be equal for all categories, that makes things
clearer and fairer: also I think anyone would be eligible for any category.
But that creates another question: should we consider normal that some people
granted a "sponsored accomodation credit" would buy an accomodation upgrade?
> > 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.
>
> I don't think this is doable. At least it would put a very high
> expectation on us to decide quite early so that people can still buy
> tickets after the decision at reasonable prices.
>
> I expect the amount of people not eglible for sponsored accomodation to
> be quite low. At least in the past AFAIK the accompanying persons has
> been quite low (10 to 20 persons?). So I don't think this is a big
> problem.
I drafted an enhanced proposal in <[🔎] 201301181748.10843.odyx@debian.org>.
> So my vote is to just stick to the first come first served rule
> regardless of the "status" of the person.
In my rememberings of the early "LeCamp" discussions, there was a perceived
high opportunity of welcoming "many" accompanying persons. I think we should
make sure to be welcoming to "accompanying persons" but also make sure we have
these numbers under control. I think my proposal permits both these.
> > 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.
>
> So this 34.- would be completely voluntary? Or do "non-sponsored" people
> have to pay this to be able to get food? I would vote for the latter.
I meant this as "non-sponsored would have to pay that amount to get food",
indeed.
> Another problem is that with the contract we can't have many people with
> accomodation at Le Camp but no food. So IMO food should be included in
> the accomodation (and thus paid if non sponsored).
Would this mean something like:
* non-sponsored: has to pay 34.- (food) + >= 14 CHF/night (at least "Iron")
* sponsored: gets food and "Nickel" hosting
* professional attendee: is a "non-sponsored" as above and pays the conference
fee. I hosted out-of-site, pays at least 34.- CHF/ day
?
Cheers,
OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.