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 pending).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
