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

Re: Finding sponsors for Debian

I'm redirecting this thread to d-project... You and I tend to think
about money very much DebConf-wise (specially in the March-July period
;-) ), but I think this is going away from the current d-vote
topic. Please reply to this message to d-project only.

Holger Levsen dijo [Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:56:00PM +0100]:
> > (Note/reminder: we have resolved last year that DebConf budget is part
> > of Debian budget, it is just earmarked differently for a time period
> > centered around the conference.)
> IIRC you still need to reply to a mail I sent to leader@ about this, where I 
> question this or maybe parts of it :-) Let me summarize:
> If DebConf goes well, this modell works nicely. 
> But if it goes really bad (not just a little), because the DebConf orga team 
> made some stupid decissions, bad mistakes, etc. I dont think Debian as a whole 
> should be liable for eg 100k€ losses. (As much as I dont want the individuals 
> / the specific debconfX NGO to be in that debt for this, I do think if they 
> mess it up, they have to pay the bill.)
> Comments how to fix properly are very welcome. Maybe it just needs some 
> cleaner wordings ;-) 
> Because probably most of this is already covered: _if_ $DebConf-Orga-person 
> does something out of gross negligence, it's not Debians (or DebConfs) fault 
> anyway. (ie someone drives a car (with the purpose of doing some requested 
> job) for DebConf, and then drives way too fast and crashes and cause 2mio € 
> damages.)
> But what if we book (way too) $expensive_place now and then later have to 
> cancel this (and pay a huge cancelation fee) or have to take it, despite not 
> having the money...
> Contracts/agreements are usually not needed if things go well, only if they 
> don't. I'm not sure we have good enough agreement (for the D/DC releationship) 
> for when^wif things go horrible wrong.
> I havent finished thinking about this, but still wanted to bring this up on 
> the table now.

I'll just answer to this by stating that I... Agree with your general
view and worry. Of course, the way a specific controversy (or
situation-gone-terrible) is solved depends on the situation, and
should be dealt with case by case. But, yes, in the moment we formally
acknowledged that DebConf is Debian (and not, as it was +- managed
before, that DebConf is *for* Debian), the project gives us some
liability coverage... Which we, of course, prefer not to use!

> > DebConf travel sponsoring dominates our overall travel sponsoring costs,
> > so it makes sense to go knocking at companies door yearly as part of
> > DebConf organization. I don't think it would be useful to do so more
> > than once per year. Companies would feel split among the different calls
> > for donations and they would hardly give more. The DPL being already
> > part of the effort, I don't see margin of improvement on that front
> > either.
> we need to ask for money *way* earlier. Starting now (for the conf happening 
> this year), is about 6 months too late. 
> (Also, but not only, because many companies donate money at the end of the 
> year...)

Right. DebConf produces quite a bit of burnout syndrome, where we
don't want to even think about it for several months. And those are
the aptest months for sponsor acquisition - And for testing some
important improvements (say, as in the Penta replacement we have

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: