Re: [Debconf-team] Accomodation pricing and categories
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin <gaudenz@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> In this mail I'll try to summarize the discussion we already had
> about accomodation pricing and categories. The current proposal is in
> the wiki: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Pricing
>
> Feel free to make editorial changes to make it easier to understand
> directly in the wiki page but please discuss significant changes on-list
> first. And please try to focus mailing-list discussions on the important
> points and try to avoid drifting away to very minor points. I'm
> convinced that we can have a productive discussion on list and come up
> with a better proposal when working together. The current proposal is
> work-in-progress and by no means finished. Please also consider that
> silence on major points will be interpreted as agreement. So voice your
> concerns now, if you are unhappy with the proposal.
>
> These are points we might still want to discuss further:
>
> * Should we combine or split payment for accommodation and food?
> The current proposal does not offer an option to pay for food and get
> sponsored accomodation or vice versa. This is to keep it simple. Some
> people argued in favor of offering these as separate options.
Assuming that there aren't really alternate food options at the venue
that I am aware of, I'd assume that combining makes the most sense, if
it makes things easier.
> * Which rooms should we expect to use for people paying a premium?
> Which is the best accomodation category that should be free for
> sponsored attendees? The current proposal sets this to "Medium
> sleeping-bag room" (12-16 bed sleeping bag room)
I defer to the judgement of those who have toured the facilities.
> * How should we plan to use the biggest rooms, for now?
> One proposal to make the big and medium sleeping-bag rooms more
> comfortable is to not completely fill them. There has not been much
> discussion about how many people would be OK yet and there is nothing
> about this in the current proposal. But I think there is a general
> consensus that we don't want to completely fill these rooms. There are
> 159 beds in these categories. Only filling the these rooms to 2/3 of
> their capacity would reduce to overall amount of available beds by 53.
> How should
Looks like your question got cutoff, but again I defer to folks who
have toured the facilities.
> * Should we allow sponsored attendees to (cheaply) buy a better room?
> The current proposal also allows sponsored attendees to buy an
> accomodation upgrade. Some people on the list thought this should not be
> allowed. IMO there is consensus that sponsored people with special needs
> should get a free upgrade to the lowest category that suits their needs.
> So e.g. a person in a wheel-chair does not have to pay for being hosted
> in a wheel-chair-accessible house or a woman requesting to be in a
> women-only room does not have to pay extra for it if we decide to put
> such women together in a room of higher quality than offered for free to
> others.
I'd say that sponsored folks with special needs should be have their
special needs accommodated at no additional cost. Regarding paid
upgrades, I have mixed feelings here, but I don't really see any clear
"best" option for deciding allocations, so I again defer, but have a
slight preference to allow it.
> Once those points are decided, we need to finalize these aspects:
>
> * Pricing
> The current prices are based on the assumption that we don't want to
> earn money from selling these beds -- the prices are intended to cover
> our costs. Some people thought that the prices for the upper categories
> are currently too low.
I have no issue raising prices for the higher levels.
> * Budget considerations
> No thorough analysis on the budget implications of the current price
> proposal has been done. A rough comparison is at the bottom of the wiki
> page. This shows that the professional and corporate fees including
> accomodation are rather lower than in previous years. And that we would
> need more than the usual number of professional attendees to earn the
> amounts that the budget currently assumes. Input about this from the
> finance team would be very welcome.
>
> * Category names
> I think there is consensus to name the different categories after a
> short description of what they offer. Similar or identical to the
> "Alternate room description" on the wiki page. Besides finding names
> that are well understood by all participants there is not much to be
> discussed here anymore.
Agreed
> * Reservation system and payment method
> I'd like to postpone discussions about these two questions. I don't
> think they are very urgent at the moment.
How long are you thinking about deferring?
> Gaudenz
>
> --
> Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
> Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
> ~ Samuel Beckett ~
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Reply to: