Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp Accomodation - Bed selling and professional fee
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
> 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?
Yes that's right. IMO the professional attendence fee should include
neither food nor accomodation. It's just for attending the conference
and completely voluntary.
>
>> > 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?
IMO it's OK if sponsored people by an accomodation upgrade. The only
situation that might be questionable is if someone that also requests
full travel sponsorship buys an upgrade. But I think we should not put
travel sponsorship into the already complicated mix and just live with
that possibility and appeal to "fair play".
For professional attendees my idea of completely decoupling would mean
that they always pay the full price for food and accomodation and don't
get any "credit".
>
>> > 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 still think that our enhanced proposal is too complicated and the
risks that we won't be able to deliver what we promised is too high.
It's true that in the early stages there was a fear of too many
accompanying persons but after recent discussions I don't think we will
have more than usual.
I still prefer first come first served allocation. But if we want to do
something more fancy I propose to keep it to one deadline. After that
deadline we decide within 2 weeks who get's which room if there is any
shortage. From there on it's again first come first served for any
remaining beds.
>
>> > 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
Yes. I propose one minor adjustment because this AFAIK matches the
agreement with Le Camp to include breakfast into the accomodation fee.
So this would increase any accomodation prices by 10 CHF and decrease
food accordingly. This is also fairer to people hosted off-site as they
normal have breakfast included there as well.
Best,
Gaudenz
P.S.: My availability by mail and IRC for the next week will be limited
as I'm in a ski camp with school kids. But please continue this
discussion. Other voices would be most welcome. Also putting this into a
draft proposal would be very welcome. Hint, Hint, ...
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: