Hi Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.com.au> writes:
> Just in response to Gaudenz's points, here is a summary of the > counter-arguments that are floating about: > > - bankruptcy issue: Richard has used words like `small' and `tiny' on > several times to describe the likely size of the conference - so while > bankruptcy is no longer the threat, the cost/benefit ratio seems to be > slanted towards cost rather than long term benefit. Regular sponsors > will notice if the conference is `tiny', and this may hurt fundraising > for future years. You are still thinking in worst case scenarios. While I agree that in the worst case we will have a DebConf that is small (about as big as DC12), this is not the most probable outcome. My main argument was that the most probable outcome is that we will have a quite standard DebConf with 50/280 attendees (see current budget variants in SVN). > > - getting the contract details right: if Le Camp are so keen to get a > signature, why haven't they compromised on all those things that are > just little `details'. If they can't compromise now to get a signature > on the contract, then it should not be assumed that they will compromise > later. There have been many email and IRC discussions about the finer > points of the contract, but no final version of the contract has been > presented. So if today's meeting endorses Le Camp, it appears the > contract terms will be stuck in their default state. Did you actually look at dc13/accounting/contracts/Le_Camp/Contrat\ Debconf13\ -\ 30-10-2012.pdf ? This is not their default contract and as I already said I don't think we should count on any compromises. But at least around here it's quite normal that you arrange the *details* later. I also gave specific examples of what I consider fixed and what I consider details to be refined. > > - urgency: fundraising has been going well without having the Le Camp > contract formally locked in. Other venues have not imposed the same > urgency as Le Camp (e.g. Fiesch doesn't even take bookings more than 12 > months in advance, Jungfrau Park's marketing manager is on vacation > until December) So what? No one ever argued that booking flexibility is an advantage of Le Camp. What people probably don't realize is that we did not just directly jump to Le Camp. When we started the venue evaluation in Banja Luka we were open to several possiblities and only after looking at least 4 other options (Lausanne, Geneva, Zurich and Melchtal) we decided that Le Camp is the best option. We also had a quick glance at several other options (like Fiesch) but discarded them because they did not seem to fit our needs (too expensive, too small, too remote, ...). So it's not like there are many options just waiting to be discovered if we decide to restart the process. It will be a huge challenge to find something of equal quality and price than Le Camp. > > Out of the above three issues, the people wanting Le Camp to be endorsed > could probably address the 2nd point, contract details, before the > meeting (e.g. by preparing an alternate version of the contract that can > be endorsed by the meeting and then presented to Le Camp) At least for the options I presented the contract that would be signed if we take one of the options is quite clear to me. I don't think we have to prepare anything. The shortening option would just have the dates adjusted. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~
pgpvVPDyqe5pf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
