Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf13 accomodation/food/fees prices proposal
On 28.01.2013 08:14, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
* Accomodation always includes breakfast (worth 10.- CHF). Likewise, it is
assumed that people hosted outside Le Camp would get breakfast there.
Accordingly, the prices for day food have been adapted.
good!
* It is always assumed that attendees either get /both/ hosting and food
sponsored or neither.
I see two problems:
One probably is only a "bad wording". There are three cases: sponsored,
non-sponsored, not-using-it. See local volunteers sleeping at home (and
also do not forget people with campers/vans, tends, etc.)
But also in general: on first DebConfs I tried to help DebConf,
partially offloading DebConf cost. Non-sponsored food was an affordable
cost for me, but also helping debconf finance (IMO). Usually I buoyed
weekly food tickets at the beginning of the conference. I could have
done a donation, but for me it seemed more natural to do in such manner.
Possibly the herb team could choose only between
sponsored/non-sponsored, and let people to decide if they want to do a
little financial help, paying part of the expenses.
And a sponsored people could pay for a better room (but he could not
help paying the food).
* The examples assume a full "7 nights" DebConf and propose a week pricing.
* Attendance fees were rounded up to 200.-CHF and 500.- CHF per "7 nights"
DebConf. About that, note that a "Corporate attendee with the best room in
Le Camp" should pay ~1kCHF which is roughly inline with the previous years.
* We moved the "nordique two-beds rooms" up to Copper category: this makes
Copper a meaningful category for the most probable use for changing
category: get a two-bed room. Similarly, we split Zinc in two, to make
explicit that you can get a "two-bed" "sleeping bag" room in that category.
BTW I still think that giving a category name is bad taste. Really!
* As it would somehow defeat the point, we made explicit that "sponsored
food+accom" is incompatible with Professional or Corporate conference fee.
Also, we thought it would be good to make these prices known to all
attendees: it gives a monetary value to what we offer. Also, we could
explicitely invite people to donate the amount equivalent to what they get.
I found complex and non-intuitive the way a person could financially
help DebConf (small amounts), without being a professional person.
I think that we are forcing people to be full-sponsored (and I don't
like the donation, I prefer to pay partially my costs.).
And I still don't like the >= on the categories.
I think that's mostly it. Please comment our changes or the complete proposal
until the next team meeting so that we can validate it and publish it on the
website.
I think that the proposal (in the form, not so much in the contents) is
looking the things only on the organizer side.
I think we should reframe things and look more at the attendees side:
what they would like, how they could help us financially, etc.
PS: so I still have the same problem/question of last mail. Could you
dare to answer (sponsored people paying good accommodation, categories
names, confusing category definition)
ciao
cate
Reply to: