On Friday, 1 April 2016 22:50:29 UTC David Bremner wrote: > >Nigel asked for how much money we need for DC16 travel. Obviously we >(bursaries) will spend whatever we're given, but here are some numbers >to help set that budget. I confess the modelling here is full of >ridiculous assumptions. Consider the same set of requests as for >Heidelberg, and multiply by a somewhat arbitrary inflation factor (based >on the difference in cost for travel from Canada). >At the current budget (I think nigel said USD17K), we would then predict >funding travel for about 16 people. I have no idea why I said 17K USD, its currently 700K ZAR. Roughly 40K EUR. ad185315 (Nigel Kukard 2015-09-09 16:24:59 +0000 33) ; Travel sponsorship 69892fd5 (Nigel Kukard 2015-11-26 11:10:23 +0000 34) ; Source: Unverified - DC15 discussions f1d9cc45 (Nigel Kukard 2015-09-09 19:42:58 +0000 36) (budget:travel:general) 700,000 ZAR (I believe this includes everything sponsorship and bursary wise) I'm going to ask for sponsorship totals to be sent to me tonight so we can see what the budget balance looks like so far. -N >That's roughly 1/3 >(both in number of people and in terms of dollar amount) of the requests >that we have received so far. I expect there will be more requests as >the deadline approaches. > >1 2015 based results. >═════════════════════ > > Here we take the applicants from 2015, and arbitrarily inflate costs > by 1.25. Costs are in EUR. Need and committee rating are just a sample > from that rank. In retrospect the committee was fairly strict in their > evaluations. > > You can find an explanation of the rankings used below. > > ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ > Amount Inflated People Need Committee rating > 1950 2437.5 3 3 4 > 4550 5687.5 6 3 3.5 > 9720 12150. 11 3 3.25 > 12223 15278.75 16 3 3 > 17178 21472.5 24 3 2.25 > 24753 30941.25 35 2 2.75 > 30903 38628.75 46 3 2 > ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ > > >2 Explanations of rankings >══════════════════════════ > >2.1 Committee Rating >──────────────────── > > 5: "must fund" > • If this person does not attend debconf, there will be > significant negative impact for DebConf or Debian more > generally. > 4: "priority funding" > • There are clear benefits to Debian or to DebConf of > this person attending debconf. > • This might be an accepted talk that seems particularly > important. > 3: "good initiative" > • We should fund this person because they propose something > interesting > • Alternatively we should fund this person because they bring > diversity to debian, or are a new contributor. > 2: "good record" > • this person has a strong record of contributing to Debian. > 1: "OK" > • if we have budget, I don't object to funding this request > > >2.2 Level of financial need >─────────────────────────── > > • Without the requested funding, I will be absolutely unable to attend > DebConf. (3) > • Without the requested funding, I will have to make financial > sacrifices to attend DebConf. (2) > • Without the requested funding, attending DebConf will be > inconvenient for me. (1) > • I am not applying based on financial need. (0) > -N DO NOT send email to this address: email@example.com
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.