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

Re: [Debconf-team] RFC on the DC15 sponsorship brochure

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:35:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:13:59AM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Sebastian Harl <tokkee@debian.org> wrote:
> > > It was discussed to mention that job offerings should be limited to the
> > > job wall (instead of, e.g., the conference bag). I suggest to add the
> > > following to the "Swag bags and raffle prizes" section:
> > During yesterday's Debian MUC meeting, azeem, Conny, and me came to
> > the conclusion that we need to avoid people gaming the system, yet
> > can't anticipate everything. So a generic "we reserve the right to
> > preview all input, material, etc and reject anything we deem
> > inappropriate and/or against the spirit of Debian, DebConf, or
> > sponsorhip. Of course, we will let you know ASAP and try to work out a
> > solution" should cover everything.
> It may cover everything, but it also strikes a very negative tone for
> something that would appear in the text of a brochure we're trying to use
> for soliciting sponsorship.
> I think if there are specific corner cases we *have* anticipated, we should
> address those; and for anything we *haven't* anticipated, we should just
> accept that a sponsor may want to do something we didn't think of.  (Which I
> don't think is fair to call "gaming", either - our sponsors support us
> because they care about Debian, not because they're trying to get some
> unfair marketing advantage!)

FWIW, the current status is a footnote which reads: "All
sponsor-provided content and initiatives must be coordinated with us".

Taken literally, it might mean a lot of work for the organizers if
sponsors indeed come asking us about every single detail.  But I guess
they won't, and it is a useful disclaimer to point them to if thing go
really badly for some reason.

But maybe somebody has an alternative or better wording, and/or thinks
we should drop it?


Reply to: