Daniel, that's really getting ridiculous.
Le mercredi, 5 septembre 2012 13.30:17, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> While I understand all of your points, I also think we should look at it
> from the other side:
>
> - Company A chooses to hire DDs, let them attend DebConf on work time,
> maybe even pay their travel bill
> - Company B hires developers to work on Linux, doesn't share any code
> with the community, gives the developers no travel allowances unless
> they can prove the event is `unavoidable' or `essential' for the business
>
> I've worked for both types of company A and company B. I've also worked
> for a company B that was exploring the idea of becoming a company A.
> Should it be encouraged? Should we give such companies a `nod', even if
> it is just a little one?
While company A might sponsor DebConf, Company B isn't likely to. It's not
Debconf's job to teach "B" companies what benefits they can get by becoming
"A", especially not this way.
Getting _less_ money from the only companies that _do_ give us money (because
they are nice "A" companies) is getting us into a big freaking wall and won't
magically transform any "B" companies ("we'll become A because we can get a
discount on a DebConf sponsoring bill").
What we need to organise DebConf is "more money, from more sponsors", not
"less money overall".
OdyX
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
