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

Re: [Debconf-team] Improving the lunch for DebConf13?



On 07/25/2013 06:40 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> The question is now if we are happy with the "formule lunch" on every
> day as it is or if we want a better lunch on some days. The complete
> lunch costs 6CHF/meal more. If we want to improve the lunch I
> suggest we choose the full lunch for 2 days during DebCamp and 3 days
> during DebConf. This would cost us 5100.- CHF (600.- for DebCamp and
> 4500.- for DebConf).
> 
> As we have to announce the meal numbers for the first days this
> week-end, we have to decide this very soon. For me personally either way
> is fine, but in the past some people voiced concerns about the lunch. I
> think that good food is very important for the success of the
> conference. As the improvement is possible within the overall budget
> numbers for food I propose that we do the upgrade unless there is
> opposition until tomorrow (Friday 25 August) evening (CEST).

I'm in favour for the lunch "upgrade".

OTOH I think we should try to downgrade the dinner during C&W: people
could choose to eat less (if it is a buffet), and probably we need the
dining room for C&W (so a buffet could simplify setup, and shorten the
dining period).

When? I think the first DebCamp, last DebCamp and setup DebConf (so the
setup days), and possibly the after-Debian-party the "formule lunch" is
more appropriate), for the other days I don't care (but If we downgrade
the C&W dinner, possibly we should have the better lunch option in that
day)

ciao
	cate


> I'm sorry that this is a bit rushed. I wanted to bring this up for
> discussion earlier but then forgot again and only now realized that time
> is running out.
> 
> Please comment soon!
> 
> Gaudenz
> 
> P.S.: I'll be on [VAC] from tomorrow morning until Sunday evening. So
> don't expect many replies from me, but hug and Odyx/Didier should also
> be able to answer any questions.
> 
> [1] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20130527.165143.a607658e.en.html
> 


Reply to: