[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] Accomodation pricing and categories



Gaudenz Steinlin dijo [Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 06:06:00PM +0100]:
> 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.

As others have said, while paying for food without accomodation in our
setting makes sense, but the opposite not so much. And if we get the
odd person or two requiring this, we can make the arrangements by hand
(i.e. transfer their "food points" to someone else, or whatever).

> * 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)

Make sense for me.

> * 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

2/3 makes sense as well. Modulo that, IMO, we should advertise we will
*try* to keep that occupancy level, but if we get higher occupancy, we
might be forced to use those beds..?

> * 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 yes. Sponsored attendees get the basic level covered, but I do
not oppose allowing to pay extra for them to be somewhat more
comfortable. If you want to nitpick, we could define a maximum
sponsored+paid level (i.e. sponsored attendees should not be able to
pay CHFlots to get in a single room, but only in a 4-occupancy room).

Of course, the examples you mention raise the "basic level". Sponsored
people with disabilities will get their needed spaces. Sponsored women
should be ideally able to *choose* whether they are OK with a mixed
shared room or need a single-sex room - But given the administrative
overhead, it might be simpler to just plan them to be in single-sex
spaces.

> * 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'd leave this as it is. Starting to offer premium services is
something that leads to controversy and discussions. And if we don't
need it (we would not make *that* much money anyway off bed selling),
I'd rather leave that alone.


Reply to: