Re: [Debconf-team] Reviewing the venue contract
Hi Daniel,
Le 2017-01-10 à 11:53, Daniel Lange a écrit :
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Am 10.01.2017 um 16:30 schrieb Jerome Charaoui:
>> Here is the current (final?) draft:
>> https://debconf17-owncloud.univers-libre.net/index.php/s/F2v2hf4DsULnC9w
>>
>> Unfortunately it's in French, as legal documents like this are difficult
>> to translate. So if you can read some (or a lot) of French, please
>> consider this request.
>
> Thank you very much for negotiating this.
>
> As usually: How can we get more "rabais"? The line item with 40% looks
> much nicer than all the ones with 20%. Have you tried senior university
> contacts (professors, heads of administration)? Stefano got rid of 90%
> of the university associated cost for DebConf16 that way (and yes, he
> said "not possible" more than once and still succeeded in the end).
> While this is not a nice task, it is worth one to two Platinum sponsors
> depending on how much of a discount you can get. Consider asking Luca or
> somebody else that speaks fluent French and can negotiate to help you.
> This way you do not need to do all the negotiations through the core
> DC17 local team and may still save Debian a significant amount of money.
That 40% line that you like is an extra discount that they are offering
for a specific room because they recently cancelled the original room
they put in the quote after finding out it was already reserved for
another group.
You have to know that the College is not a University-level institution,
and one of the differences is that heads and professors (teachers) have
much less leverage on the administrative. As such, they can't influence
decisions very much.
Of course I won't refuse any offer of help on this. I'll happily brief
anyone who wishes to join these negotiations as long as they're willing
to see them through with me :)
> Content wise:
>
> It reads very much like a compilation of standard contract elements the
> College has used in the past. Thus there are some inconsistencies (see
> below) and some oddities (arrive 5 minutes before your gym class).
> More importantly: I find everything around Internet provisioning and
> availability missing. I think this is crucial. So unless I just didn't
> find it (reading French is quite hard for me), please add a section.
You're totally right about Internet provisioning. I raised this in an
email I sent out to the venue manager out minutes ago.
> We (=DC17) need to know whether we require all the reserved classrooms
> for sleeping or whether we'll lean more onto the hotel(s). Because then
> we don't need to pay what we won't use (CAD $11k in total).
We agree verbally that we'd be able to make such adjustments to the
contract "as we go" but you're right, it should be in writing.
> Do we need "B 5501 DEF" _and_ "Petit auditorium" during DebCamp?
> We could save ~CAD $2,500 not using both during the DebCamp time.
The italics are for alternative options for our info. They're not
included in the total.
> Do we need reserved seating at the cafeteria? This is quite expensive
> (CAD $3,360 for DebCamp plus CAD $3,920 for DebConf). Can we do without
> reserved seating for DebCamp?
I do think we can do without the cafeteria for DebCamp. We can have
meals in the garden, which was an option previously suggested by the
venue manager. I'll confirm this with our catering-meister.
> The payment terms on page 1 and annex 2 differ. 95% up front in four
> installments vs all up front 10 days before the conference.
Already raised this previously but you're right, they didn't fix it.
> Do we have the $5m insurance they ask for? Does it cover stuff Le Diner
> breaks or do they have separate sufficient insurance?
We budgeted $1000 for insurance. It will need to cover civil
reponsibility and damage to our equipment (video gear mainly). I don't
know about Le Dîner's insurance but we can find out. In any case since
it's an external caterer they won't be using the College's kitchens or
anything like that, so I'm not worried they'll break things...
> Why do we need to pay "sécurité" when we man the doors ourselves?
> Can we possibly come up with a better system? E.g. lock the doors
> 22:00-03:00 once frontdesk is un(wo)manned and post two phone numbers on
> the door to call when people want them opened? If we communicate that
> well up front we should have very few people stranded at the doors and
> need not have 1am - 3am night shifts where outside arrival days not much
> happens. If we need to pay security, can we give them a phone and they
> can also handle arrivals/partygoers?
The College would normally be closed and empty between 22h and 7h.
Security costs are for 1 guard to be in at these hours, so the College
can remain "open". However with "only" one guard their policy is not to
have any outside access at night.
There is already an arrangement in that we don't have to hire a second
security and still have nighttime access as long as we control who
enters. How we do it is up to us and posting an (orga) phone number at
the door is possible, albeit somewhat less convenient for attendees.
(Lost phones happen...)
> We should reserve the right to cancel the event within 10 days of the
> beginning without full compensation in the case of force majeure, e.g.
> acts of terrorism or natural or man-made disasters.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What is "without full
compensation", for us? for the College?
> p. 5, item 16, liquor license and p. 10, item 3, consumption and sale of
> alcohol conflict
It's not a conflict, it just says we can't sell/consume alcohol without
a permit, and that if we sell/consume alcohol, we need the permit.
> p. 5, item 19 is to be refused, we expect the venue to be in fully
> working conditions and when things are broken they need to be repaired
> asap to ensure safety and well being of our attendees. Otherwise we
> should reserve the right to reduce the payment by an appropriate amount.
I agree that forfeiting out right to ask to something to be repaired
might not be a great idea. Eg. if the main projector in the main
auditorium dies, we need it repaired or replaced, otherwise that room is
nearly useless to us.
> p.6, item 29 is to be refused. If the College wants to terminate the
> lease because their security goes haywire they need to pay full remedy.
That's a tricky one. It puts me, as an employee of the College, in a
difficult position whereas if I contest this, it's basically like saying
I don't trust the judgement of my bosses or colleagues, because this is
what it's about: if they make a reasonable request and we refure (and go
haywire) they want to be able to cancel the whole thing. And I agree
it's worrying because DebConf isn't a badminton match!
What I suggest is raise the issue in a non-conflictual way by asking
what kind of recourse they will provide us in case security (or another
employee) ask for something we deem unreasonable.
> p.6, item 30 (le Droit de supervision) sounds orwellian and creepy.
> The dorms and the toilets should better not have CCTV.
It does sound orwellian and creepy! However last I checked there were no
CCTV in classrooms or toilets. I don't think there is any in the
conference rooms either, but I'd need to confirm. There is CCTV at the
entrances, and in common areas such as corridors.
Phew!
Thanks for looking at this and sharing your thoughts.
-- Jerome
Reply to: