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

Re: [Debconf13-ch] Visit to the bunkers in Genève and LocationCheckList



Hi all.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:33:40 +0100, Marcus
Moeller<marcus.moeller@gmx.ch> wrote:

If bunkers are an option, I would like to re-add Zurich as possible
location. We could offer very cheap sleeping locations in bunkers and
got a venue which should perfectly fit, here at the ETH.

Fair enough I'd say we could give you a last chance. Just until now
nobody from Zurich showed up with a detailed proposal. If you can
prepare a dossier which brings the same level as geneva and vaumarcus.
This means: preliminary talks with the potential venue about rooms and
prices, detailed information about the quality and price of the
accomodation, plan for catering, etc. The document about geneva in the
private git repository is a good example.

The city of Zurich will help us to find (hopefully cheap)
accommodations, but the big problem for Zurich is to find the venue: we
really need a ETH or UNI insider (to get better chances, and better
offers), probably sponsored by a full professor.

Salvatore, Axel and me are all working at the ETH. Salvatore is checking if we can get the rooms at the Department of Electrical Engineering.

I have already organized the FrOSCamp in 2010 at the CHN building, which could also be an option.

And the second problem is the local team. I found myself alone on
organizing the Zurich bid. So if there are other active volunteers, I'm
available to meet each others and to help to complete the bid [but not
alone again]. OTOH I now prefer the non-city bids (hoping that also the
global debconf team will agree on such choice).

I have added some information to the wiki page.

http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Switzerland#Zurich

Please tell me what exactly you think is missing.

Greets
Marcus
_______________________________________________
Debconf13-ch mailing list
Debconf13-ch@lists.debconf.net
http://lists.debconf.net/mailman/listinfo/debconf13-ch


Reply to: