Re: [Debconf-team] Reviewing the venue contract
Hi Jerome,
Am 11.01.2017 um 04:24 schrieb Jerome Charaoui:
>> 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...
Me neither. But they need to heat the food and typically they do this
with lighting gel burners. So if a CAD $5m insurance ever has any value
that should be when the place caught fire.
>> 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?
Annex 2, item 2 says we pay in full to the College (at least if I read
that correctly). I'd refuse that for any force majeure incident. Which
is the only reason, we'd have to cancel a DebConf on short notice.
>> 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.
Sounds good. May be pre-define the escalation procedure of who will be
involved on their side and our side. Make it at least two levels of
escalation and include Mehdi and Odyx (or other non-local French
speakers) on our side as the highest level escalation. This way no
low-level security guy can go bonkers and cause use too much of an
issue. Defuse the clause by a sufficiently complex process definition so
to say. This is an unlikely case anyways but I've seen odd things happen
at conferences so I do read the contracts and try to make sure they are
somewhat sane. And that clause currently is a carte blanche.
Kind regards,
Daniel
Reply to: