-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi Gaudenz, I understand your comments below and the meeting is the place for debating them - however, if there is to be a decision, are we still waiting for a final answer from Canton Neuchatel? It would seem foolish to sign a contract before we maximise any funding from the local tourism/economic development budget. If they have not given an answer, then maybe the meeting should be pushed back a week. Regards, Daniel On 22/11/12 15:15, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQrj75AAoJEOm1uwJp1aqDo9AP/2Fhlck44X0pHQkgdKiy45U4 GM5PVRmybzlyZmX6qstZZZSedxJ5NsYo/V+2yNkYLBo+EBnQCTbWNqYOG9C3gMgS owqDI/1VmMgVWBaLxyh7xVB6g57HHuIkF1qyiKfsqcMeuPsigPQrs/XYcFHphxpW vdLzZffTHfLOQ1EZJlorqNF2bWF5OOxx1FhFp3R/d220bniQ6mle9maMeiD4gR1M dmrnAJHjQxNf250M8eJDJQYsQasNXH3HiSj+nAApndWdxqnumVJ5KDo1kLmvtJWD VB1JHx9SVaMEPIqolffgDL+2edC9782mEXSBYBExYQ3/afCsT/udyhewiDE75/rY 7hrDxMsFS4LzgdLdbjYDbmiY9DMT94yZZn3uptMzruW6u/qiTm+RnqvKr4BpjlgI Jwl/UzTCeERMJuT5jb3+dZVOM3gd0P5pv4hmRI9izcbRi1fLsahFTmzmh3X6nCDn neXmzN0ACI+AAI04Nx9AHvBrcEjMiAydB1YyQbAYg3ulTcu+DTx5nJzGgsT2LleF pXJ5cq6rufxOcN5hV4ogWe9rUER+focY2TsohZPdhVK7ARaaZ/lVq0v+KwrKLWwA 7ju3Kg2VdJ49lTVyjN8lHCIyab+D2GJW8/W1QoR8NkLopcwAMqJNMQqoTK4x8jhH 9okk+W8O68He7aUoAof0 =t086 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
