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

Re: [Debconf-team] Suggestion for Professional / Corporate attendance Fee



On 2013-01-23 21:24, Philipp Hug wrote:
I prepared this a while ago, when I was working on the budget, but I
didn't send it to the list yet.

Thank you for working on this.

These are the basic ideas:
* Accomodation/Food are paid per night
* When accomodation is booked also food must be booked
* Total cost of pro and corporate fee should be about the same as in
previous years, if split.

That all sounds sensible, yes.

From the last two option we should probably pick the preferred one and
only offer this. And I think, as DebConf general attendance should be
free, we could drop the CHF50 fee.

There's also the point that some companies are happy to pay the registration fee, but would want to opt for the lowest category of fee offered. So it might back-fire to offer a cheap option above "sponsored, zero cost".

* As only the pro and corporate will get a receipt, there's still an
incentive to use this option if you company pays

I understand your thinking behind restricting receipts, but I fear it might just cause arguments with people who feel entitled to have them. (In some countries it's a legal requirement to give them when you take money for something.)

Food should be fixed: CHF 25 day (lunch + dinner)

Does it make sense to split food from accommodation, when Le Camp want food numbers to be approximately the same as accommodation ones, and when there aren't good other options nearby?

Yes, it'll be possible for corporate to take a cheaper room, but in
previous years, the only reason people booked corporate was to get a
better room, so I don't think this will happen.

I don't agree that that's why people booked corporate, but I also don't see any problem if a corporate person hypothetically takes a cheaper room. I would expect the better rooms to be over-subscribed at the prices we will set, not for them to go empty and us to get less money by it.

--
Moray

Reply to: