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

Re: [Debconf-team] Accomodation - Room capacity limits

Hi Gaudenz, and thanks for this discussion (re)start;

Le dimanche, 17 mars 2013 22.36:52, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
> It was pointed out several times, that filling the largest rooms at Le
> Camp to their maximum capacity might be unacceptable. I agree with this
> and propose to fill the 3 largest rooms (all rooms in the "Large
> sleeping-bag" category) only to 2/3 of their capacity, even if we have
> more people applying for accomodation in these rooms. If we run out of
> accomodation space (…)

I do agree with that line of thought.

> For the rooms in the "Medium sleeping-bag" category I propose to leave
> an equal amount of beds empty as far as possible but to eventually fill
> them if needed.

This has one kinda-unrelated implication: as we'll probably use all rooms of 
that category in any case (even with 1 person per room), that means we'll have 
to clean all of them at the end of DebConf. That's of course mitigated if the 
rooms are filled.

> For all smaller rooms IMO it's acceptable to fill them to their full
> capacity. These are our best rooms and I don't want to "waste" any beds
> in them.

I agree. As I expressed in the IRC meeting: I really think (and I have seen 
the rooms/beds) that being the 8th in an 8-beds room is way more confortable 
than being the 16th in a 16-beds room: for privacy, for available private 
space, for noise, etc. The ideal comfort is provided by having have all rooms 
half-filled, but if we want to have as many DebConf attendees as possible, I 
think it's a better plan to try filling the "good beds" before the "bad beds", 
and mitigate the "perceived very crappy beds" by making those more acceptable.

>      (…)            With this proposal we still have 79 beds in rooms
> with 4 or less attendees. IMO this is enough to satisfy the needs of
> those that have expressed a preference to not share their room with more
> than 4 persons.

I agree.



Reply to: