On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:59:12PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > For DC14, we have budgeted for 20 people for two days for the > > pre-conference setup. I think it's time for us to start pinning down > > who should be part of this setup team. > > (...) > > This year, as mentioned previously, we also have a lot more requests for > > sponsorship than we have funds to pay for them (almost 50% more). This is a > > good problem to have, but it also means that funding travel for 20 people > > for the setup is going to eat roughly 40% of the travel sponsorship budget > > - so we should make sure that this sponsorship is going to the right people. > Umh... Although this does not sound *so* wrong, I would prefer to see > the percentage go down. Of course, I suppose not everybody who intends > to arrive early for the pre-conference is requesting travel > sponsorship, right? Of course, food+accom should be covered anyway, > and that's not a trivial amount... ButI guess that it's quite less > than the full airfare. Right, this was meant as a hypothetical, really. In practice, we have only 6 people who have said they want sponsored accommodation during the setup days, and only two of these people have requested travel sponsorship so far. Is that enough people from the global team to do the setup? Do we need to start /asking/ people to come sooner? FWIW I also just asked one of the people I was expecting to see showing up earlier for setup, and he said that the system wouldn't let him enter an earlier date. Sorry for not making this explicit - for the record, the system only lets you pick a date earlier than 8/22 in the system *if you mark yourself as a volunteer or organizer*. This wasn't advertised, because I didn't want people trying to game the system by volunteering to let them come earlier, but I guess maybe I went too far in the other direction. So, anyone here who was planning to come for the setup days, please enter this info in your summit registration :) > > How do we want to go about ranking these volunteers, so that the bursaries > > team can make an informed decision? Should all volunteer requests be > > discussed publicly on this list? (I guess some people would not be > > comfortable with this.) > If by "this list" you mean debconf-team, I don't think it > should. Maybe the bursaries should discuss this with people planning > to lead the pre-conference setup in the different areas, to be sure of > whom to count as "most important" for each team. > > Is there someone who feels they are in a position to speak for the > > relevant teams, to tell bursaries who are highest priority in terms > > of their contributions to the team? (I think the relevant teams > > would be video, network, and frontdesk; not sure if there are any > > others.) Should this be decided by the DebConf chair, the DebConf > > committee, or by last year's team (who may be in the best position > > to provide feedback on particular volunteers' past contributions)? > I guess team heads are roughly identifiable by now. I would turn to > them. And use that as a guidance (although not a 100% decision) for > the Bursaries to debate+decide. By this point, I believe bursaries have all the information they need about people's team status in order to make their decisions - the video team was the big one, everyone else who asked is either an "obvious" member of the team to be sponsored, an obvious offer to volunteer in exchange for sponsorship by someone not currently part of the team, or someone whose volunteer status didn't matter for them getting sponsorship. However, I'm concerned by this idea that team heads should be "roughly identifiable". This has definitely *not* been the case. For the video team, there are some "usual suspects" who we know are coming; but for the network, we have Kees Cook as the local lead, and we have been struggling to find anyone else who considers themselves part of the network team and can give him the information he needs to make sure the network comes together smoothly. This has been a significant obstacle - we know that the network is an important element of a successful DebConf, yet no one has been able to provide the expert background information on what DebConf's network needs are! So can someone who has experience with running the DebConf network please work with Kees to sort out the capacity requirements for the conference, and provide input on equipment choices etc. (and on whether we have any equipment that we should expect to be coming from somewhere), since none of this is documented in the wiki? Thanks, -- 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