Re: [Debconf-team] 'meeting' tonight: General discussion
Hi
Just a note on the dates below... (included in line)
(the rest I don't have strong enough opinions on to contribute, can
chat in the meeting)
B
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Bernelle Verster <bernellev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Sorry for the late notice, tonight's meeting is again a general discussion chat.
>
> I don't know if I'll be at meeting, so here are my (more than a) few
> cents. Go ahead and ping me in IRC, but there's at least 50% chance
> I'll be busy.
>
>> Things to note:
>>
>> * Daniel asks people to look at the governance proposals [1] and [2]
>> and comment / discuss what they would like to have as "governance"
>> going into 2016.
>
> Please note there was another alternative proposed, that has support. [1]
>
> That proposal, which I made, was to use the text of the original
> DebConf delegation from 2011 [2].
>
> Although it's a huge challenge to find people committed enough to
> stick with DebConf year after year, and there may if been some rough
> edges in the most recent "teams" implementation, I came to strongly
> believe in what the former chairs were trying to do. They were trying
> to build a sustainable organization that would live on after a single
> DebConf, that learned from experiences and builds upon them, while
> still leaving room for innovation.
>
> The idea of long running subteams makes sense, particularly in the
> fundraising area, where we have recurring long term contact with a
> subset of our sponsors. (How the subteams are structured is an
> implementation detail, so I'm not set on the lead/shadows/mentors
> formal structure).
>
> Taking a step back and looking at the conflict between local-team and
> global-team. It's not inevitable. What we should be striving to do, is
> to have each bid/bid-team set the major expectations, and have the
> committee evaluate not just the team, but also the bid. If the bid
> team sets the expectations properly and the committee selects the bid,
> that agreement should be considered akin to a contract between local
> and global, in that it sets expectations for the following 18 months.
>
> The selection committee should not select a bid that has something in
> it they won't be able to support after the selection is made, even if
> it means delaying the selection process, and even opening it up for
> additional bids. The bid team should make clear in their bid, how open
> they are to working with the global team. If a bid is selected and
> their is a disagreement down the road, people should take a breather
> and see what the initial expectations were.
>
> We really need to strive for both a stong local and strong global
> teams, so we can have a
>
>> * The website is coming along well - is the current one on wafer already? [3]
>> There is talk of a sprint in January, which may involve flying people
>> to Cape Town. Stefano knows more here, we should discuss the options.
>
> Is this for just DC16, or would this work be applied to future
> DebConfs? Also how much budget are we discussing? My quick thoughts
> are that a sprint could be justified, if it's not one-off work, in
> that it won't be leveraged for future DebConfs, and/or the budget
> being requested isn't very large. IE: If we are thinking wafer has a
> good shot at being the new summit/web/everything for DC16+, and it's
> not a large monetary amount, then this makes sense.
>
>> * I'm still waiting on a flyer draft.
>>
>> * For fundraising, we should also discuss and agree on whether we want
>> to send the swag to sponsors again. DC15 had a hiccup here, but DC13
>> and DC14 did send swag to sponsors. And whatever we decide we can then
>> tell sponsors consistently and early if they ask. Daniel's opinion is
>> that there are very valid reasons to at least send bags and shirts,
>> but feel more ambivalent about sending swag from other vendors.
>> And to note: Michael (azeem) suggested we should have a more organized
>> push to debrief DC15 sponsors, and asking them about whether they
>> appreciated and/or in future want the sponsor bag would be one. DC16
>> can also add their thoughts here.
>
> 1) Some reading [2] on fundraising suggests that surprise gifts to
> donors can be effective, but if it seems like the donor is "buying"
> the gift, it can be instead be counterproductive. It clearly strongly
> discourages promising the gift as a reward for donation. (Bear in mind
> donors motivations are somewhat different than sponsors.)
> 2) For sponsors at silver+ I feel it is useful to show how their logos
> were featured
> 3) For sponsors below silver, I think it might be useful to show how
> their logos could have been featured if they were silver+?
> 4) Nice to give shirts to our sponsors who couldn't attend (I know
> when my company was sponsoring and I couldn't attend, the shirts were
> appreciated.) Probably this only applies to sponsors that are true
> fans of Debian.
> 5) Swag from other sponsors, I don't have a strong opinion. I
> certainly don't think it would be ideal to send only swag from other
> sponsors and no shirts. Putting my sponsor hat on, I think it's useful
> to know what other sponsors are giving, so I can get a sense of what's
> allowed/expected, but I wouldn't miss it if it weren't sent. Overall
> it will likely influence sponsors to be more likely to provide swag,
> which has it's own pros and cons.
>
>> * I've forwarded an email from the accommodation people. I think we
>> should announce the dates.
>
> If there is realistically no chance of dates changing, that sounds great.
The (low) probability is that we don't have accommodation sorted. Then
we need to decide if we move the venue, which could mean changing the
dates. But anything else, like finding alternative accommodation,
would probably still stick to those dates.
The venue is booked, and has infrastructure largely sorted already,
and the dates can't be changed (much) because of the university
vacation which allows our access to the venue. So I think, announce
the dates, and bust ass to get the accommodation we want, which,
really, is largely sorted, it's just the paperwork.
>
> Cheers,
> Brian
>
> [1] - https://www.mail-archive.com/debconf-team@lists.debconf.org/msg13308.html
> [2] - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00005.html
> [3] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/08/08/donor-gifts/
Reply to: