Re: [Debconf-team] Platinum Sponsors and press release
Le mercredi, 1 mai 2013 15.15:46, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
> >> Shall we add a couple of lines regarding them in the registration
> >> email ?
>
> How was this done in the past? I think we had the very same promise for
> platinum sponsors also in previous years. If this included the
> announcment mails, then I'd include it also for this year. Otherwise I'd
> not change it.
Indeed, DebConf12's announcement didn't include platinum sponsors:
http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120412
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/04/msg00002.html
But it was apparently some days before the first platinum sponsor was added to
the website [0].
DebConf11 and DebConf10 hadn't any sponsor mention either:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/04/msg00005.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/02/msg00000.html
As I researched these mails: 2010 was "long", 2011 was "very short", 2012 was
"long", but both 2010 and 2012 were still way shorter than the planned "long"
version for 2013. In the light of this, I'm still in favour of our "short"
version, but we have more data for discussion.
> > What about the following snippet at the very end of the mail:
> > "DebConf13 is happy to be sponsored by its two main sponsors: Google [0]
> > (a corporation specializing in Internet-related services and products
> > which include search, cloud computing, software and online advertising
> > technologies) and the Matanel Foundation [1] (a non-profit foundation
> > that encourages its fellows, progress, creativity, culture and
> > religion).
>
> I'd leave out the descriptions altogehter. Especially the Google
> description sounds a bit weird and we don't know if they would be happy
> with it. What about:
>
> "DebConf13 thanks it's two platinum sponsors: Google
> (http://www.google.com/) and the Matanel Foundation
> (http://www.matanel.org).
I had not included the meaningless "platinum" steel mention in favour of a
more neutral formulation, but "main" isn't much better. All-in-all your
formulation sounds better and I certainly don't insist for the descriptions.
Cheers,
OdyX
[0] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debconf-data?view=revision&revision=3255
Reply to: