[ sorry for the long mail ] Dear DebConf(10) team, in the past few days I've been thinking quite a bit about your preliminary inquiry about 20k Debian funding for DebConf10. With this mail, I'd like to share with you some thoughts on the matter, in view of this evening meeting, which I'll join with pleasure.
Unfortunately, there is a background never-answered question, i.e.: "are
DebConf moneys Debian moneys?", but I won't address it here (still, I'd
like to discuss it with you later on, maybe at DebConf10, to set things
straights for the future). For the time being, I can only acknowledge
that DebConf10 has acted on its own independent budget, by asking back
all past DebConf surplus in the very beginning (as approved by the
previous DPL). So I think it is fair to consider that "DebConf10 money
are not Debian money" (although this would not be my favorite
interpretation for the future).
Looking at current DebConf10 budget I'm worried, and I'm worried for
future conferences. While it is true that DebConf has worked in the past
by getting past surplus in the beginning and giving them back to Debian
in the end (or at least that is what I've been told by past DPLs and
DebConf organizers), this year is peculiar. First of all because the
DebConf9 surplus was huge: 70k. Then because that surplus has been
totally used by DebConf10 (according to today's estimates in
budget.ods).
This---in my very naive view of someone who has never organized a
DebConf---is a big problem for the future. Imagine for instance that
DebConf11 will need to anticipate a lot of expenses, and imagine that
Debian will not have 70k of surplus in 2011; what will happen? Maybe
you've already discussed all this internally, but I have never heard
comments on this possibility / risk. I would very much like to hear them
now, before deciding whether to pour some more 20k into DebConf10.
More generally, I think that if DebConf wants to be budget-independent,
then it should be autonomous and aim to (amortized) 0-budget
conferences. If this has been an exceptional year, fine, Debian can
cover up, but the exceptional year should have been covered up by the
exceptional surplus that was available from DebConf9, ... no?
Now, all the above sounds negative because I'm worried to pour some more
20k into a conference which seems, on paper, to be living way above its
possibilities. Add to that the fact that Debian → DebConf money seems
to always have gone in one direction only, always summing up to the
"DebConf surplus". Finally add to that 20k is quite close to half of
Debian SPI reserves [1] ... and you'll see why I've been very much
troubled by this choice ahead of us :-)
[1] Michael has kindly volunteered to bring exact SPI numbers to this
evening meeting
This is not to say that Debian won't cover up. But this is to say that
before doing that, I would like to hear *very* reassuring arguments on
the following:
- That you have already reduced the budget in every reasonable way. If
this is a bad year for a conference, fine, that can happen, but the
counter move to a bad year for a conference is not "we've Debian
money", IMHO it should rather be "let's see if we can sacrifice
something"
- That you have already thought about how to get some more money *back*.
E.g.: increase t-shirt price, have a permanent and well-advertised
(e.g. during the introductory speech) donation booth at the conference
and at Debian day, etc.
- That you will explain to me---but more importantly *to
developers*---why DebConf10 is going to consume so much of the Debian
SPI earmark (currently 70k on 120k that were there before, with the
request of increasing the 70k to 90k; of course with approximate
numbers).
Note that I don't think all this was a deliberate miscalculation, and
I think that all of you have tried to have a 0-budget conference. If
this has failed, there can be a lot of reasons, e.g.:
- sponsoring did not work as well as we expected (it's a bad year)
- the debconf surplus was too high, we wanted to put it into use
- the venue is more expensive than initially planned
- ... add here any "shit happens" reason ...
Which one of the above is correct?
I believe DDs (and Debian donors) should know.
All the above is not meant to be rude or blame-ish. I fully trust your
judgement in DebConf matters, and that is part of the reason why I did
not participate in the organization. Nevertheless, since you're asking
Debian money, I think it is just normal to ask for some explanations
about what---under a very naive judgement---seems to be a super
expensive DebConf, willing to be more expensive.
Also, I'm considerably worried about Debian reserves, especially in view
of the potential need of anticipating money for future DebConf-s, and
that is what makes my decision even harder to make.
Thanks for your attention (and for restless work!).
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
