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

Re: [Debconf-team] Sponsorship and paying options


Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Gaudenz, and thanks for this discussion (re)start;
> Le dimanche, 17 mars 2013 22.36:59, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
>> I propse we offer the following options:
>> 1) Sponsored accomodation and food:
>> With this option you don't pay anything and get a bed in a large or
>> medium sleeping-bag room and food at Le Camp.
> This means that for a maximum number of "Le Camp" attendees of 359, the number 
> of "sponsored accomodation" attendees is a maximum of 132 (81 in medium 
> sleeping-bag and 13+17+21=51 in large sleeping-bag). That's roughly 36% of 
> places.
> I was initially puzzled by that low percentage; as my DebConf experiences 
> where that basically everyone got sponsored accomodation at DC11, and I 
> thought that "most" attendees got sponsored accomodation at DC12. But I now 
> discovered that I'm wrong, so let's face it:
> - at DC12 [0]: 100 attendees requested sponsored accomodation, on a sum of 234
>   attendees: ~43%.
> - at DC11 [1]: 237 attendees requested sponsored accomodation, on a sum of 558
>   attendees: ~43%.

The DC11 numbers seem a bit odd. Is the total number of 558 attendees
really correct. I'm quite sure we did not have that many during most of
the conference.

> I initially thought (and said) that aiming at (roughly) 70% accomodation+food 
> sponsoring coverage would be inline with past years and "teh DebConf spirit"; 
> now recent historical data painted me wrong.
> [0] http://debconf-data.alioth.debian.org/stats/registration-data.txt
> [1] http://debconf-data.alioth.debian.org/stats/old-dc11/registration-data.txt
> Now I still think 36% is still a little low and there's basically two ways 
> forward: a) sponsor camping; b) open one more category to sponsored 
> accomodation.
> a) would mean paying for the "camping fee" on behalf of camping attendees who
>    would request it. That would push the percentage up to 53% in the best
>    case (but keep in mind that we can only open camping within some
>    conditions).
> b) would mean opening "sleeping bag double-room" to sponsored accomodation (so
>    that all sponsored accomodation would be "sleeping bag"), pushing the
>    percentage up to 40%.

I agree that 36% might be a bit low. I did not spell that out explicitly
but Camping used as "overflow" of sponsored accomodation was always
meant to be free in my proposal. I just would not adviertize camping
from the begining. 

On one hand adding the sleeping-bag double rooms to the sponsored
category seems easiest, because that means sponsored == sleeping-bag. On
the other hand I would prefer to add the 48 beds in "Medium rooms with
bedding" to this category and sell them for an extra to sponsored people
(6 CHF / night). This would make it a bit more complicated for us, but
allow sponsored people to choose a bit more comfort without the problems
if we allow all kinds of upgrades. What do others think?

> I'd be in favour of both combined, as that would make the "sponsored" category 
> all of "sleeping bag" (then we could allocate the specific categories first-
> come/first-served, e.g.), making it an easier description.
>> 3) Self-paying hosted at Le Camp with food at Le Camp
>> You just pay the prices in the "Pricing" wiki page[1] for food and
>> accomodation.
> As far as I read historical data, in the past it was possible to request 
> either of food or accomodation sponsored. I understand that the rationale to 
> drop that possibility is that there's no sane way to get food outside of "Le 
> Camp" on a regular basis (+ simplicity of the registration).
> Though, I think letting potential attendees to get "only sponsored food" or 
> "only sponsored accomodation" (and pay the counterpart) creates smaller 
> "monetary contribution" steps and can help having more people contribute part 
> of their costs. (Specifically, by not allowing upgrades, we might have people 
> willing to pay for a better category, but not necessary willing to pay for 
> their food).

I would not allow the "only sponsored accomodation" as this creates
problems if people then expect to be able to only buy certain meals and
skip others. I'm open to the "only sponsored food" option. But would we
then allow these people to self-pay for whatever room they like or would
they still be restricted to the accomodation options for sponsored
people? For this reason I prefer to not offer this option.


Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~

Reply to: