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

Re: [Debconf-team] Day trip decision



On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:40:08PM +0200, Philipp Hug wrote:
> > My understanding is that the proposal does exceed the stated budget for
> > the conference dinner, which is what makes it important to have the
> > analysis against the other points.  (We believe we can afford it by
> > reallocating unused funds from the "day trip" line; but that's still
> > something we should decide about.)

> The cost for dinner consists of the 2-hour boat trip + dinner on the boat.
> Our original plan for the daytrip also included a 1hour boat trip.
> So it is reasonable to split the cost of the boat trip between the daytrip
> and conference dinner which makes it fit within the budget perfectly.

> https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/DayTrip

Can you please point me at the cost of the one-hour boat ride option? 
Looking at the 2h boat ride + dinner, the total is 14102 CHF; the conference
dinner budget is 10440 CHF; this is a deficit of 3662 CHF, but I don't know
how much the 1h boat ride would cost us.  Perhaps this really does all fit
in the budget, or is close enough that we should not be micromanaging here -
but that's currently not clear to me. :/

If it does fit in the budget when looked at this way, then as the budget has
already been approved, I support Raphaël and Didier moving forward with this
plan.  Even if some of us don't think this is the best use of the money,
it's not fair to those doing the work to come in at the last minute and move
the goalposts on them after they've already come up with a plan that fits
the budget they were given.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: