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

Re: [Debconf-team] Sponsorship and paying options


Le lundi, 18 mars 2013 10.11:20, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
> 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.

Sure. As I understand it, these are numbers from Penta registration, not 
actual on-site reconfirmed attendance.

> 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.


> > 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 think it can be mitigated by a smart phrasing and separation of the options:

a) accomodation
- sponsored accomodation (incl. breakfast in Le Camp)
- 'medium room with bedding' accomodation (incl. breakfast in Le Camp), 33 CHF
- … accomodation (incl. breakfast in Le Camp), $N CHF
- outside of Le Camp (no breakfast in Le Camp), 0 CHF

b) food

- food (lunch + dinner) in Le Camp, 24 CHF
- sponsored food (lunch + dinner) in Le Camp, 0 CHF

>              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.

I think we can rely on common sense there, and I wouldn't enforce too many 
conditions. We could also write down explicitely on the registration form what 
the conditions are (then automated flagging + registration@ weighing in).



Reply to: