Re: [Debconf-team] [Debconf-discuss] Travel sponsorship BoF: minutes
On 23/08/10 at 06:34 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On su, 2010-08-22 at 14:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > I think it's totally reasonable to use our projects funds wisely. That is, > > if > > you get or apply for travel sponsorship, to help looking for good prices. > > Given that finding good flight prices is hard, would it be worthwhile to > get a travel agent to arrange transportation for everyone? A good agent > might be able to find much better deals than most people, and might not > be too expensive. On the other hand, the fact that people have to pay themselves makes them more likely to feel responsible about it. If Debian paid on behalf of Debian, I feel that more people could then change their minds about attending. Another option would be to allocate sponsorship for a given trip, to register the best price when sponsorship is awarded (it's not that hard using Kayak, for example), and to sponsor for a maximum of "best price + 10%", for example. L. ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] [Debconf-discuss] Shuttles/Buses from Zagreb to Banja Luka cancelled
On 07/07/11 at 15:28 +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote: > Idea about Shuttles/Buses going from Zagreb to Banja Luka has been > killed and therefor cancelled. It was fairly complicated and would > only generate additional costs, but nor was your response about this > whole idea so great. Hi, I'm wondering where we were supposed to provide a "response", and if I missed something. I liked the idea a lot, and it was part of my motivations for arriving on the 23rd, because it looked more likely that shuttles would run on that day. Given that there are at least 19 attendees arriving between 11 and 14 on the 23rd in Zagreb airport, all of them saying "yes" to the shuttle on http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Arrivals#23._July_3 , it would make a lot of sense to coordinate something even if not done officially... I fear that we might overflow the bus, otherwise. - Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Special sponsorship
On 20/07/11 at 22:10 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 03:18:03AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > > When is the travel sponsorship process going to be fixed to stop asking > > about total travel costs vs. sponsored travel costs, and instead focus on > > what's important: the amount of sponsorship moneys the individual requires > > in order to be able to attend DebConf? > > We already ask about both numbers, as you imply. I do think it's reasonable > and > helpful to know the total cost and at least some assertion about the > applicant's financial situation (we're not asking for tax documents here). > This > allows herb team members to infer whether the applicant is doing their part to > pay what they can. In order for our limited travel funds to be used > optimally, both the applicants and the herb team have roles to play. However, > if Debian discusses this issue and develops a consensus that it doesn't want > to > know people's total projected travel costs, I don't plan to stand in the way > of > that. Not that I have veto power anyway, of course. > > Definitely one fix that should be among next year's changes is replacing the > "Amount you are unable to pay yourself" wording with something easier for > people from around the world to read quickly, like "Amount of travel > assistance > needed". But the question, with inferior phrasing, is already asked. I think that one of the problems is that people have different understandings of "travel assistance needed". What does "needed" mean? One could use a loan to pay the debconf trip, so even in this case, the travel assistance is not really "needed". For those of us who pay their debconf attendance using their personal money, attending debconf and paying themselves probably mean that they will spend less expensive vacations after debconf, not buy a new laptop or a new car, rent a smaller appartment, etc, etc. In fact, by paying themselves, they are (virtually) donating money to Debian, that is used to pay the trip for someone else. Except it's not really recognized as such. IMHO, the real question is: "how much would the project need to pay to have you at debconf?" Also, I'm surprised that there's no rule about what Debian will reimburse. We should probably have a set of rules on what is acceptable, such as "for flights, Debian will not reimburse more than 110% of the cheapest flight (in economy class) found for your trip on that date." Has it been considered to use a travel agency to book debconf flights? Canonical is doing that for UDS, and it's working quite well. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Sponsorship wording and requirements (was: Re: Special sponsorship)
On 21/07/11 at 04:56 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > I'd certainly be curious to hear more about the logistics of how Canonical > does > that for UDS. Is Canonical's travel agency also used for attendees who are not > asking Canonical to pay for their travel? How does the process work for > whoever > uses the designated agency, and what benefits come from that arrangement? I've only used the travel agency once. It was very simple. I used an online search engine to decide on the flights I wanted to take, sent an email to the travel agency, and got the electronic tickets back. The main benefit is that there's no need to pay the travel costs myself and wait for reimbursement. I assume that from Canonical's POV, it also makes thing simpler since it's likely that there's only one large bill from the travel agency to handle. I don't think that the agency was used for non-sponsored attendees, but I might be wrong. - Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Special sponsorship
[ agreed with everything you wrote ] On 22/07/11 at 16:33 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > That's it. There's no reason, with a proper decision making process, for > the sponsorship committee to even *know* the total travel costs of the > attendees - and the fact that this is part of the information being fed into > the system contributes to making poorer decisions. While it's not necessary for the committee to know the total travel costs, I still think that we should define a broad standard on what is acceptable to ask for reimbursement. We don't want must-have-at-debconf DDs travel first class and then ask Debian for reimbursement. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Information gathered for travel sponsorship
On 02/09/12 at 21:24 -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: > > > Agreed. What's interesting is the ratio between the income and the > > amount requested, not any of both absolute numbers. What I envision is > > a list ordered by "days of work needed to produce the money I > > request". > > I guess I'm not seeing how days of work is different than > monthly_salary/20 (approximately). So you may as well just ask for > salary. I can also imagine people with same salary having vastly > different amounts of money left over to spend on travel. But maybe this > is covered adequately by the open-ended questions. > > Anyway, I guess is all quibbling about details. The main question is if > there is concensus that the privacy loss in revealing income information > to the committee is outweighed by the benefits to the process. That was > far from clear to me at the BOF. I also think that this goes too far. I think that the sponsorship committee should: 1) verify that the funding asked for is adequate (given the expected travel costs from the originating country) 2) rank demands based on *benefit of attendance for Debian*. If you quantify, for each applicant, the added value of the attendance for Debian (not in $ or €, but in a "virtual currency"), it becomes a simple problem (maximize benefit for Debian) with a simple solution: order applicants using the "benefit/cost" ratio, sponsor as many as possible => maximize the total added value of Debconf for Debian. I don't think that the "economical effort" should be part of the ranking. First, it's very hard to quantify, because you need to consider at least: income, general cost of living, family & other recurring expenses, does attending debconf result in a loss of income (case if working freelance), in a loss of vacations (if attending debconf during vacations), or is the applicant attending debconf as part of your work, etc. Second, I think that it's irrelevant: I don't see why we should care about how hard it would be for the requester to attend if we don't sponsor him. Also, it turns the process into asking "OK, that requester says s/he won't attend if we don't sponsor him 200€. But maybe s/he will attend anyway? Let's see how much s/he earns." I also don't think that the "current/past contributions to Debian" should be ranked. Of course, they should be part of the form, to provide context for the "project" of the requester and make sure it is realistic (references are a good idea and help with that, too). But if you rank past contributions and use that to award sponsorship, you turn Debconf in a "thank you for your past work!" event. Someone who does fantastic work in Debian, but plan to attend Debconf as a base camp for visiting Switzerland, should not be sponsored. Another idea: ask sponsored attendees to write a short report after Debconf, on their actual work during debconf. It would probably be very extreme to remove sponsorship after Debconf if the results are not good enough, but it could be re-used during the next year's process. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Information gathered for travel sponsorship
On 03/09/12 at 11:08 -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Holger Levsen writes: > > > On Montag, 3. September 2012, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >> I think that the sponsorship committee should: > >> 2) rank demands based on *benefit of attendance for Debian*. > > > > +1 > > > > (and I agree with the two not quoted suggestions as well.) > > Just to be clear, to me Lucas's message reads as saying that need should > not factor into the committee's decision at all. Am I misreading > something? What I'm saying is that "benefit of attendance for Debian" should be the only ranking criteria (instead of past contribs + benefit of attendance + economical status of the applicant). Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Information gathered for travel sponsorship
On 03/09/12 at 15:33 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 03/09/12 08:33, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I think that the sponsorship committee should: > > 1) verify that the funding asked for is adequate (given the expected > >travel costs from the originating country) > > 2) rank demands based on *benefit of attendance for Debian*. > >If you quantify, for each applicant, the added value of the > >attendance for Debian (not in $ or €, but in a "virtual currency"), > >it becomes a simple problem (maximize benefit for Debian) with a > >simple solution: order applicants using the "benefit/cost" ratio, > >sponsor as many as possible => maximize the total added value of > >Debconf for Debian. > > How do you quantify `benefit' though? To give an example: > > a) do you want the immediate benefit of someone fixing 100 bugs while at > DebConf? > > b) or do you want the long term benefit of making the community grow, by > bringing in new members, for example? > > These are two different types of `benefit', and they would not sponsor > the same set of people Both have clear benefits for Debian, and I would hope that both kind of applicants get sponsored. Regarding new members, that's the kind of applicants where recommendations make a lot of sense (so people can write: "X might not be very visible in Debian yet, but s/he has been doing a great work in the Y team, and his/her contributions have been steadily increasing in terms of quality. S/he is clearly identified as a future core person for the Y team, and I would love to use Debconf to work more directly with him/her.") But in the end, it's up to the committee to balance both kinds of benefits. There's a subjective part, and that's why we have such a committee. > a) should sponsorship be ruthlessly linked to objectives? E.g. > objectives for the next release: > http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/ Note that that's only a subset of the objectives for the next release, because many objectives do not require a release goal. > b) or a socialist approach, things like supporting people with a > disability, single parents, etc? > > c) or a focus on young people/students, perhaps? > > This last option stands out most for me, whether it is 100% sponsorship > or just 33% discount, the intention is to stimulate a future generation > rather than to pay for results now. You are making the assumption that the future generation of Debian contributors is to be found amongst young people and students. This is not necessarily true, and I can think of several recent counter-examples. I have the impression that it's much easier for the committee to judge applicants based on their work plans' merits and benefits for Debian, rather than judge on social/human aspects. But I'm not part of that committee ;) Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] le camp budget...
On 28/10/12 at 16:03 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > Hi Richard > > Thanks for your budget. Just two notes: > > - The minimum price is not per week but for the whole event. So we can > use the nights we don't use during DebCamp for DebConf. This > significantly reduces the costs. > - Our budget calculates with 34.- CHF per meal as Le Camp already agreed > to that option. This means a cold buffet (not only sandwiches) for > lunch. Isn't 34 CHF per meal *a lot*, esp. for a cold buffet? Or is there a typo somewhere? Even if it's per day and not per meal, that still sounds like expensive for buffet food. If we are renting the whole camp anyway, couldn't we use the spare beds to attract more non-sponsored attendees? Specifically, I was thinking of a "become a Debian contributor" track, with tutorials, presentations suitable for people not yet deeply involved in Debian, and mentoring sessions. Given the central location of this year's Debconf, it's likely that many people would be interested. We could then choose a price per day (accom + food) that would make it affordable by volunteer contributors, while still generating some revenue. And it would obviously be a very good thing for Debian to have such a training of new contributors. Overall, I think that a big and successful Debconf is very important for Debian, and Debconf in Le Camp sounds like the perfect plan to achieve that. If it's not possible to achieve that with a balanced budget, it's probably totally reasonable to use Debian funds. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] beds & camping (Was: reports from Le Camp "BSP", part 2: le venue & le contract)
Hi, On 29/10/12 at 00:41 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > * which is not so personal at all: what to do (exactly) when we reach >300 > people... because until then the "idea" was: big tents were lots of people > sleep. (Which I think is basically a bad idea and not really camping nor > nice...) > > * so I've "became personal" and suggested that personally I'd like to sleep > in a small tent and I think that it would work beautifully to have 20-30 2-3 > people tents distributed over the venue, each "attached" to a house (so its > clear which toilets+shower to use) and that obviously I dont want a huge > mess, > garbage floating around etc and that likewise eg the Le Camp would be too > crowded with 500 attendees or such. But 20-30 small tents, set up in some > areas we would define (so that we keep some structure and free spaces) that > would work very nicely and much better than 2-3 big tents and what he would > think about this... :) He admitted that he doesnt like the camping idea at > all > (personally) but well, this indeed probably sense and sounds ok'ish. > > * To be clear, off-meeting comment now: while I do personally think the > above > 20-30 smaller tents plan will work best, this is just a proposal from me atm. > If you'd prefer big tents... we just need to make sure to setup the tents > somehow/what "properly+nicely", whatever this means in detail. (There are lot > of steep areas, but there is also flat spaces next to a forest etc...) - and > there will also be a per person fee as there are still costs these persons > will cause. (Though obviously less then beds.) > So there is still need for negotiations(!) - Now, when we finalize the > contract but also when we do DebConf, we still need to respect their place > (we > didnt talk about nudity yet ;) and they will also need to arrange with a > bunch > of more or less strange geeks and their needs. So, to summarize the situation: - according to http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/LeCamp/Rooms, some rooms are supposed to have a rather large number of people sleep in. - beds in some of those rooms are probably too close to each other compared to what people would normally expect (see http://layer-acht.org/fotos/670_Switzerland_DC13-pre/20121027_027_Sm.jpg.61.html). though it's not clear if only the 32-beds room is organized like that, or if it also affects other rooms. - the draft contract says: "Location éventuelle de tentes par DebConf 13. (Seulement si le nombre de 300 personnes est dépassé) Nuites à incluire dans le decompte: CHF 10" which translates to: "Possible renting of tents (only if the number of people is higher than 300). Nights to include in the final bill: CHF 10" Questions: - Does the 300 figure include campers? i.e., could it be 250 people in beds + 50 people in tents? Or do we need to reach 300 people in bed to allow for campers? - If not, could it be negociated down a bit? Currently there are 159 beds in room of >8 beds. If we filled only 2/3 of the beds in those rooms, it would probably turn them into more acceptable options, but then we can only fit 326 - 1/3*159 = 273 persons, which is < 300. Also, we are talking about mid-summer, and I don't expect that there will be air conditionning in the rooms. Sleeping in a 32-people room doesn't sound fun if outdoor temperatures are 30-35°C. - How much camping space is there? According to the pictures and to Holger's mail, there are lots of steep areas. See http://layer-acht.org/fotos/670_Switzerland_DC13-pre/20121027_025_Sm.jpg.59.html http://images.gadmin.st.s3.amazonaws.com/n5469/images/detail/375054_le_camp_vaumarcus.jpg - The contract talks about renting tents. What if we come with our own tents? Thanks! Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] smaller DebCamp, normal DebConf instead of shortening?
Hi, >From my limited understanding of the situation, the current ideal plan would be to reserve all of LeCamp for both DebCamp and DebConf. While it really makes sense for DebConf, I'm not so sure about DebCamp: usually, the number of attendees increases gradually through the week, so a large number of beds will be unused during most of DebCamp. Has it been considered (and discussed with LeCamp staff) to do a incomplete booking of LeCamp during DebCamp? Is there flexibility there? Of course, that would mean sharing the facility with non-Debianers, but that seems acceptable given that there are many small houses, so we would still be quite isolated and wouldn't have to talk much with normal people :-).. Crazy idea (because it would put a lot of load on the orga team): we could do DebCamp at another place with more reservation flexibility (even Interlaken?), and then move to LeCamp for DebConf... Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Updated DebConf budget draft - explanations
On 10/04/13 at 10:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:14:58PM +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > But as always it depends on having some well known speakers. > > That where the 3k for external speakers should go. If we don't need them > > and get well known and good speakers for free or cheaper, even better. > > As Gunnar said: I'm pretty sure there are some well known speakers at > DebConf and I can not imagine that we need to invite additional speakers > to celebrate Debian birthday. Hi, Not focusing specifically on Debian Birthday, I'd like to stress that it's often very interesting to have external speakers at Debconf. Of course, not speakers that would come just to give a talk, and leave immediately afterwards. But ideally, people who: - will talk about a topic of general interest to the community - will stay for at least a few days and work with other Debconf participants Such external speakers generally have a very positive impact on Debian. I'm thinking of representants from Debian usptreams, downstreams, or organizations that collaborate on a regular basis with Debian, or organizations that would have an interest in intensifying their collaboration with Debian. There has been various ideas of speakers floating around. Maybe people supporting their coming to Debconf could elaborate a bit on what they would talk about and why it will be interesting to have that talk at Debconf, and on what they will work on with other attendants during Debconf. Provided we have a target of 2-3 such invited speakers, maybe the budget of 3k CHF could be reduced a bit, especially if we agree that we could offer the same accomodation conditions as for other attendants (I'm not sure that it's currently the idea). Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Sponsored accomodation/food for GSoC students
Hi, On 07/05/13 at 16:45 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Nicolas Dandrimont dijo [Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:36:15PM +0200]: > > I'm CC:'ing Lucas to make sure that we will be able to get the students' > > travel > > sponsored another way: we should be able to ask Google for part of it (in > > the > > past, they have sponsored the trip for 2-3 students), topping it off using > > the > > money Google gives to Debian for successful GSoC projects if we need to do > > so. > > Therefore we shouldn't need the DebConf team's help for that. > > This would be good — Now, please remember that it was suggested > (although I'm uncertain whether it reached an agreement) to use GSoC's > money assigned to Debian for the GNOME Outreach Program for Women. I agree that, if Google can't pay for students' travel to DebConf, we should look into using Debian money for that. But I can't really say more without knowing how many students we should sponsor on Debian funds. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Updated DebConf Budget draft
On 23/05/13 at 19:44 +0200, Philipp Hug wrote: > Hi, > > We just committed a new version of the budget to svn, which includes > DebCamp and other additional expenses, see: > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debconf-data/dc13/accounting/ > > The following changes were made to the budget: > * DebConf was extended from (1setup + 7 DebConf days) to 8 days which > results in additional expenses of around CHF 12000 (difference between 290 > and 60 person on saturday) > * Cleaning/dish-washing was added > * Conference dinner was extended > * Daytrip was extended > * Debian Day and/or Birthday event budget increased > * 4-day DebCamp was added with a budget of CHF 2 > * Debian newbies initiative was added (+CHF 2) Hi, Three questions: - 90 attendees for DebCamp seems rather low. Is that due to sharing the venue with other groups ? Is there a potential for increase ? If positive, what would it cost ? - Is that budget with hot lunch or cold lunch? If it's with cold lunch, have you clarified what kind of cold lunch it would be? My personal opinion is that cold lunch would probably be fine (it's mid-august after all), provided there's enough diversity not to be bored of lunches after a couple of days. - What does "Note: have to pay all breakfasts every day" mean? Thanks a lot for this work. I'm really looking forward to coming to Le Camp :) Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget approval - DebConf/DebCamp
On 30/05/13 at 13:32 +0200, Philipp Hug wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > As promised, I'll send you the budget for DebConf and DebCamp for review > and approval. > This is the same budget as sent on May 23th and there have been no requests > for changes so far. > > Could you please review the budget and approve it if you agree with it? Hi, I approve this budget. Please let me know if the real expenses or income were to differ significantly from those values. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Day trip decision
On 23/07/13 at 12:20 +0200, Philipp Hug wrote: > Hi, > > Now, as a matter of full honesty; by looking at the detailed budget > > source, I see that the amounts were as follows: 50 CHF / person for > > DayTrip, 30 CHF / person for Conference Dinner; both multiplied by 348 > > unique attendees. > > > That's correct, we calculated with CHF 50 /p.P for the daytrip which > results in the 17400 for the 348 persons in the budget. > Don't forget that this amount also includes eating out on lunch, which we'd > also pay CHF10-15 (depending on food option) per person if we'd stay at > LeCamp. > > We do have an approved budget of 17400 and the money is available, so I > don't see any need to discuss this again. That's one of the reasons for a > budget, to be able to delegate work to different people and not > micro-manage them. > > Looking at the numbers from [1] the boat trip with dinner is the really > expensive part. > So if we do the conference dinner on another day and only look at the > daytrip budget it looks a lot better: > Total amount including lunch paid to LeCamp: around CHF 14k (+transport, as > we don't use the boat) which is below the 17k in the budget and if some > attendees won't eat dinner on this day and mark it in penta, we'll save > even more. (It would then even fit in CHF50 p.p) > > [1] https://debconf13.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/DayTrip > > My suggestion, if Raphael agrees, is to go ahead with Daytrip organization > as planned within our budget and organize conference dinner separate from > day trip. Hi, I understand that spending a lot of money on the daytrip (and the conference dinner) might look like bad use of Debian money. However, I think that generally, people agree that the daytrip is important because: - DebConf is a very tiring and stressful event. Spending a day outside of hacklabs and talk rooms, focusing, thinking and talking about non-Debian-stuff, significantly improves our ability to focus, and our productivity, during the following days. - the daytrip is a very nice opportunity to meet people outside your usual group of Debian friends, which is extremely healthy for the project. - the daytrip is a good opportunity to discover the local country. It's quite easy to end up not going out of the DebConf venue for the whole week. :) I think that the proposed Day Trip activities are really great and will very much contribute to reaching those goals. Now, there's the question of the conference dinner. If the conference dinner is just a "longer dinner at the usual place with some marginally improved food", I think it misses the point, and most attendees will just want to go back to hacklabs. Also, we shouldn't have a conference dinner just because most conferences have a conference dinner: DebConf is quite special, we had DebConfs without conference dinners before (e.g. DC10) and it was OK. A conference dinner during a boat trip looks great, and something that attendees will remember, but it also looks quite expensive, even if we can afford it thanks to the fantastic work of the sponsorship team. I was wondering if some compromise solutions were possible, such as keeping the boat trip, but having a less expensive standing "cocktail" while on the boat, with self-served food? Or just a less expensive menu? Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] Framework for taking measures in case of severely unsuitable behaviour during DebConf
Hi, [ It sounds a bit strange to raise this after a DebConf that happened in such a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, but still ... ] This came up during a discussion with Patty Langasek, who is one of the members of the antiharassm...@debian.org alias: Do we have a process for taking measures during DebConf in case of severely unsuitable behaviour? It might be useful to add something about that in https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Welcome for future editions of DebConf. LCA has: http://conf.linux.org.au/register/terms_and_conditions and http://linux.conf.au/cor/code_of_conduct which includes: Linux Australia may take any or all of the following measures: The alleged offender may be asked to stop or modify their behaviour The alleged offender may be warned that enforcement action will be taken if the behaviour continues If the behaviour continues, the alleged offender may be asked to immediately leave the venue and/or will be prohibited from continuing to attend the event (without reimbursement) The incident may be reported to the authorities To clarify: I'm not advocating a very long CoC for DebConf, but something that clearly states that the DebConf orga team can decide to expulse someone from the conference could unfortunately prove useful. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Framework for taking measures in case of severely unsuitable behaviour during DebConf
On 21/08/13 at 06:13 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:20:01AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > [ It sounds a bit strange to raise this after a DebConf that happened in > > such a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, but still ... ] > > > This came up during a discussion with Patty Langasek, who is one of the > > members of the antiharassm...@debian.org alias: > > Do we have a process for taking measures during DebConf in case of > > severely unsuitable behaviour? > > Do you think that something more than this is needed?: > > Anti-harrassment > > DebConf is committed to a safe environment for all participants. All > attendees are expected to treat all people and facilities with respect and > help create a welcoming environment. If you notice behavior that fails to > meet this standard, please speak up and help to keep DebConf as respectful > as we expect it to be. > > If you are harassed and requests to stop are not successful, or notice a > disrespectful environment, the organizers want to help. Please contact us > at antiharassm...@debian.org. We will treat your request with dignity and > confidentiality, investigate, and take whatever actions appropriate. We > can provide information on security, emergency services, transportation, > alternative accommodations, or whatever else may be necessary. If > mediation is not successful, DebConf reserves the right to to take action > against those who do not cease unacceptable behavior. > > http://debconf13.debconf.org/register.xhtml#antiharassment > > > It might be useful to add something about that in > > https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Welcome > > for future editions of DebConf. > > I think that speaks to the incomplete integration between the > debconfN.debconf.org site and the wiki, more than anything else. If we were > consistently directing people via the former rather than the latter, perhaps > the existing notice would be sufficient? Right, I did not find that notice in the Registration page. I agree that its content is sufficient, and that we only need to make sure that it's not too far from the critical path of DebConf attendees. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf14 Dates And Upcoming Decisions
On 01/10/13 at 12:19 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:59:04PM -0600, Norman García Aguilar wrote: > > > In fact, wiki.debconf.org seems like a nice place to record such things. > > > ;) > > > I've created a blank page with some open questions; I would appreciate it > > > if > > > those who have experience running the DebConf network would help fill it > > > out. > > > >https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Requirements/Network > > > Video Team has something in a wiki page [0] can be useful to know what > > video team needs. > > Thanks, I've cross-linked these pages. > > > I checked the DebConf Manual [1] but there is nothing about the Network. > > Oh! Wow, thank you. I knew that there had been past efforts to try to > improve institutional documentation in the wiki, but apparently I didn't > know where it was or that it was this extensive. Even though I now see that > it's in the sidebar of every page, it's rather far down the sidebar and the > name never grabbed my attention. I wonder if we could do something to > improve the navigation to make this more obvious? Would it be reasonable to > include a link to the manual on the wiki's main page? > > > Right, DebCamp is not about DebConf setup, as it is in the debian wiki[2], > > is about hacking, so IMHO it would be really great to have DebCamp as > > usual :) > > > [2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebCamp > > Per my mail, having "DebCamp as usual" is not an option; the space is not > available to us for a full week. An option could be to organise a few focused sprints in Portland just before DebConf. Given that it's a good way to minimize travel costs, It's reasonable to assume that our next DPL would welcome the idea. It would be great if at some point someone local could provide a few directions for that (e.g. recommend a hotel with suitable meeting rooms). Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf14 Dates And Upcoming Decisions
On 02/10/13 at 06:50 -0700, Patty Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 11:08:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > An option could be to organise a few focused sprints in Portland just > > before DebConf. Given that it's a good way to minimize travel costs, > > It's reasonable to assume that our next DPL would welcome the idea. > > > It would be great if at some point someone local could provide a few > > directions for that (e.g. recommend a hotel with suitable meeting > > rooms). > > I'd be happy to gather a few hotel recommendations - the first I can point > at is University Place Hotel [0], which was our "backup" venue - it's right > across the street from Portland State University, and often hosts > conferences. I might be able to talk to the PSU comp sci department and get > them to "host" these sprints, which could help get a discounted rate through > the hotel as well. > > Let me know when you need details ironed out, and I'm happy to get the > quotes in place. Naturally, the further out this is planned, the more likely > you're going to be accommodated as you wish. The closer we get to the > conference dates, the harder (read: perhaps impossible) it's going to be to > get the rooms and meeting places arranged. It would be useful to get a very rough estimate of how much such sprints would cost (per night, and per meeting room). But unfortunately, it's probably too early now to ask teams to apply for such sprints with a reasonable work plan. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Updated budget for DC14
On 27/03/14 at 12:45 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > So in the discussion with the DPL, it remains undecided whether the DebConf > newbies initiative will be renewed with a specific earmark. For the moment > I've left this as a single $32k line item in the budget for all travel > sponsorship; we can always change this later if the DPL comes to a different > decision with the chairs. Right; my position is that I'm not really keen on deciding myself how to split the travel sponsorship budget between 'newbies' and 'oldtimers'. So I would be open to let the bursaries team decide themselves on the balance between 'new contributors', 'old contributors but new to DebConf', and 'old DebConfers'. However, the Chairs pointed out that providing an overall budget for each category might be easier for the bursaries team. So I've asked the chairs for input about reasonable quotas and categories. > This leaves the following items from the budget that are not yet funded, > which I am listing in the order I believe we will fund them if/when funds > become available: > > $13,000 additional travel sponsorship > $6,026 additional food/accomodation sponsorship > $3,000 guest speaker sponsorship[1] > $1,540 conference bags > $4,600 conference dinner[2] > $14,784 day trip > > [1] I think it's probably a bug that we've prioritized this above the > conference bags; in discussion with the DPL I carelessly lumped this into > "travel/food/accomodation sponsorship for more attendees". Lucas, are you > ok with us fund the bags before funding guest speakers, with no other > changes to the budget? Yes. I wonder about the respective merits of the daytrip vs the conference dinner too. But I'll leave that up to you (the DebConf team). Thanks a lot for your work on that! Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] TO status for DebCOnf15's legal entity
Hi, Adding auditors to Cc, and quoting in full. On 25/04/14 at 17:51 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Dear Lucas, > > there have been discussions about the status of the DebConf 15 legal > entity and its status towards Debian. > > The two points of contention are > > a) handling Debian's money > b) potentially carrying "Debian" in the name of said legal entity, as > in "Debian Deutschland e.V." instead of "DebConf Deutschland e.V." > > For a) there are precedents of trusting the local organisation. Sure. But now that we have a process for establishing TOs, I'd rather use it. > For b), with my trademark team hat on, I don't see any issues even if > the organisation does not become a TO. As Brian disagrees and Joe has > not chimed in, we are tied within the trademark team as of right now. > > We do not have the time for long deliberations as an option with the > venue will lapse if we wait too long with signing contracts and as we > need the legal entity as contractual partner. What would be a suitable deadline for making a final decision and TO status and name? > Yet, I have become convinced that using "Debian" in the name will ease > sponsorship efforts. This means a higher chance of a balanced budget > and a larger travel budget. This directly benefits Debian. > > > As discussed in #debian-dpl, due to those time constraints, and in the > spirit of collaboration, I am hereby submitting an intial response to > the requirements for becoming a TO[1]. Thanks for that. I'm commenting inline, but could you please reply with a full new version suitable for sending to -project@? > If you think it unlikely that we will gain TO status please say no > sooner rather than later; we would rather do without Debian in the > name than lose too much time. I think that gaining TO status is a realistic outcome, and that we mostly need to flesh out some details. > All that being said: > > 1. The organization should share Debian's general visions > > We are (almost?) entirely made up of DDs, most of us have had Debian > in our lifes for more than a decade. > We agree with the Social Contract, the DFSG, and the Debian Constitution. Who is 'We', initially? > 2. The organization should remain loyal to Debian > > See 1. > Going against Debian's best interest now or in the future would not > only be stupid beyond description, it would also wipe out our > collective reputations. Is there a process that ensures that 'We' is unlikely to change, at least in terms of loyality to Debian? (e.g. ensure a minimum number of DDs in the board, etc) > 3. The organization should provide accountability on assets held in trust > > At a minimum, we will create yearly accounts and share this data with > Debian Auditors and anyone else the DPL deems useful. Would you agree to also send reports in a timely way, when auditors ask for them? > 4. The organization should be reliable, sustainable, and reactive > > We think we proved how quickly we operate. Many of us hold other > positions of trust. > As to sustainability, we do not know if this organisation will die > after DebConf15 or if we will use it in the future as well. This > decision will be made after DebConf15 and we will get the input of the > community and the DPL. > > 5. The organization should provide a reasonable financial framework > > We are aiming for tax-exempt status and are working with pro-bono > lawyers to make sure this happens. > > 6. Additional opportunities > > This is happening to make DebConf15 the best possible DebConf we can deliver. > > > On behalf of the DC15 team, > Richard > > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/TrustedOrganizationCriteria Thanks again, Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] DebConf governance & 'Debian Deutschland' name and TO status
Hi, There has been various questions raised about several topics related to DebConf15 organization. I'm trying to wrap-up a single answer covering all questions. Sorry for not replying earlier. I was travelling during the past week, and ended up having much less free time than I expected. I should probably have posted a VAC message. 1) Respective governance & decision making of DebConf, DC15 and the DC15 legal entity As you know, there is an ongoing (slow) discussion about DebConf governance. I believe that my position is best summarized by the excerpt from the draft delegation below (for DebConf chairs): >8 DebConf is organized by the DebConf team (aka DebConf organization team), that gathers many Debian contributors, both from the general Debian community and from a local team. The DebConf chairs are Debian Project delegates who act as a liaison between the Debian Project and the DebConf team to ensure the success of DebConf. Specifically: * The DebConf chairs are ultimately responsible for the organization of DebConf and for the use of Debian resources (e.g.; money, Debian trademarks) to that end; * The DebConf chairs advise the DebConf team and share their experience of DebConf organization; * The DebConf chairs help the DebConf team define a structure (esp. in terms of sub-teams and roles definition) and decision-making processes that suits the requirements of DebConf generally, and of a specific edition of DebConf; * The DebConf chairs monitor the progress of DebConf organization and ensure that the defined team structure and decision-making processes remain functional and sufficiently efficient to ensure a successful DebConf; * When necessary, e.g.; when the DebConf team's inability to make a decision has an important impact on DebConf organization, or when a decision taken by the DebConf team is perceived by the DebConf chairs as creating serious risks for the organization of DebConf, the DebConf chairs can override the DebConf team for a specific decision. >8 To put it differently: DebConf chairs have the power to veto any decision made by the DebConf team. However, ideally, they should never have to use that veto power, because the DebConf team should have listened to their opinions and advices beforehand. On the other hand, the DebConf team must have some freedom to make implementation choices that empowers them to make their own, very special, DebConf: the chairs are here to make sure that those implementation choices are not threatening the success of DebConf. (Note that this is already the case in the current delegation. The draft above just makes it a bit more explicit.) Reflecting this repartition of powers in the bylaws of a local entity is quite challenging (similar to when a TO needs to codify that decisions about Debian funds held by a TO are ultimately made by the DPL). I don't think that this strictly needs to be written in stone in the bylaws, but rather that the people involved are in agreement with it. (also, I cannot comment on the proposed bylaws for the DC15 legal entity -- my mastering of German is nowadays mostly limited to knowing what my name means, and answering 'I kann nicht Deutsch sprechen' to the occasional emails in German ;) ) There's further work to do DebConf governance. But I'd rather see incremental suggestions based on the above proposal, rather than completely independent proposals. 2) Should the DC15 local legal entity be a TO? Past DebConf history shows that local entities created for the purpose of organizing a DebConf edition tends to linger around for some time after DebConf. So I don't think that the creation of this legal entity should be taken lightly. As Martin wrote in <20140417201402.ga7...@fishbowl.rw.madduck.net>, the TO guidelines are just guidelines, and a temporary legal entity created for a specific edition of DebConf might not have to follow all of them. However, for transparency, I think that the TO guidelines are a good basis, and that the DC15 legal entity should describe how they meet those guidelines, including mentioning which ones they feel are irrelevant for their particular case. So, I think that the simplest solution is to make the DC15 local legal entity a TO, while keeping in mind that this is at this point a temporary TO for the purpose of organizing DC15, and that some criteria can thus easily be waived. If the TO would like to continue to act as a general-purpose TO after DC15, we would then have to revisit the guidelines that were waived at this point. I'll reply to Richard's email about TO status separately -- I have a few further comments. 3) Naming of the legal entity / use of 'Debian' This would have to be further discussed inside the trademark team, but I don't think that using 'Debian Deutschland' for the (temporary) TO should be a problem. Lucas signature.asc Descrip
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf Governance (was: DebConf governance & 'Debian Deutschland' name and TO status)
On 26/04/14 at 12:45 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2014-04-26 11:37 +0200]: > > 1) Respective governance & decision making of DebConf, DC15 and > >the DC15 legal entity > > > > As you know, there is an ongoing (slow) discussion about DebConf > > governance. I believe that my position is best summarized by the > > excerpt from the draft delegation below (for DebConf chairs): > > Is this draft up for discussion? Yes. > Even though zack's delegation left much to be interpreted, it was > also wise in that it did not overregulate at this early stage. For > instance, chairs cannot ensure success of DebConf, and were > I a chair, I would run away if you asked me to be "ultimately > responsible" for that success. Heh, note that this part is directly inspired from Zack's delegation, which said: "the chairs will be responsible to the Project for the organization of DebConf and how Debian resources are used to that end." > I especially don't think that the chairs should be "helping to > create decision-making structures" in new-formed local teams, but > let them self-organise. Obviously not all local teams can do that > and need help, but others do not. Specifying that the chairs should > help all teams is going to exascerbate the problems we are facing > these days. Of course there's an implicit "if needed" there. Chairs shouldn't be expected to help when there's no need for help. > It's even worse than that, actually, and specifically affects the > chairs, which is why the following aspect must be taken into account > in any delegation: as long as the chairs do not re-organise > themselves in such a way that one or two of them handle DCX while > the third concentrates only on DCX+1, we'll have a situation where > two very critical periods overlap: the final lap leading up to DCX, > and the pre-sponsoring, legal entity, contract negotiation etc. > period for DCX+1. The proposed delegation does not specify any internal organization for the chairs. If they feel that splitting up that way is the right thing to do, why not. But I don't think that the delegation should impose any specific organization on the chairs (or on the debconf team). > Local teams are really project teams, self-contained in many ways > and up to a certain point, within a larger team. They are charged > with a task *because they are trusted to perform that task* and > unless we see DebConf as an exercise in bureaucracy, they should > have as much freedom as possible to carry out said task. There > should be transparency and reporting standards, limits in the powers > (e.g. the budget), and everything else that makes up a good > governance. But there should not be top-down control. That may have > worked in your mulitnational corporation in the sixties, but it > doesn't work there nowadays anymore, and it sure doesn't work in > a volunteer-driven project, such as DebConf. What you are asking is that Debian trusts the DebConf team with an event that is crucial to the success of Debian, and an amount of money that is much more than what we receive in donations during a typical year (excluding DebConf funding). Without any top-down control. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I made that decision :-) Over the past years, we have had very different DebConf teams, and also very different DebConfs. I agree that the DebConf team should be given as much freedom as possible to organize their own DebConf, but at the same time, I believe that we need some project oversight, because this is also a way to ensure that more people can actually organize DebConf, and not just teams where all people with 10+ years experience in Debian. Of course, the balance is tricky to find between "too much oversight" and "not enough oversight", because both bring clear problems. That's why the DebConf chairs role is an important and difficult role. :) > But what I am trying to say is that we should really spend some time > doing conceptual work to figure out a good way in which our > volunteer team can organise 2–3 conferences at any one time in > parallel and make sure that the team is trusted by Debian as a whole > such that there's no need for liasions who are held responsible… but > who are not supposed to take authoritarian steps because everyone > was supposed to get their advice in advance… but when they have to… > without that being made clear what it actually means… then they can > veto… without that being clear either (e.g. you won't be able to > veto a contract once it's been signed…)… > > It seems to me that this would be digging the hole deeper from which > the current frustratio
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf Governance (was: DebConf governance & 'Debian Deutschland' name and TO status)
On 26/04/14 at 15:32 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > But when we agreed to run for DC15, there was no indication about > top-down control. There's the delegation mail, and there's > https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DecisionMaking#DebConf_Chairs.3F, but > these rather draw the picture that the chairs are the "wise elders", > not the ones exercising top-down control. > > Put differently: when we submitted our bid, we did so as a team with > the goal to organise a great conference, not because we wanted to be > the ones to proxy between venue etc. and top-down controllers who > make the decisions. > > That's the environment in which we wanted to organise a conference. > > Most of us have been involved with DebConf for several years, which > gives us a bit of a headstart for the organisation. However, never > would we assume we could or even want to organise DC15 without the > experience and the dedication of the orga team. I hope this is > evident from our actions: making preparations on the basis of sane > assumptions and then turning towards the team for feedback and > approval — even though nowhere does it say that we need this > approval. > > Again, I am not trying to split hairs, but "being responsible for > the oranisation of DebConf" might also mean "establishing a project > team to take care of the organisation", it does not need to mean > keeping that team on a leash, however long it may be. > > Now you are adding the word "success" to the delegation, which > — correct me if I am wrong — increases the pressure on the chairs > and will cause them to want to be more in charge, which is going in > the wrong direction, if you ask me. At the very least, it'll make > their job harder, since: > > > Of course, the balance is tricky to find between "too much > > oversight" and "not enough oversight", because both bring clear > > problems. That's why the DebConf chairs role is an important and > > difficult role. :) > > Exactly. And this is why we should ask ourselves whether it's the > right role, or whether there isn't a better split across multiple > roles. In the model I propose, there's indeed the possibility that chairs end up making every decision. However, that would be a total failure, both for the organization team, and for the Chairs. The spirit of the delegation is that Chairs should help the organization team make most of the decisions themselves, and be available for advice if needed. Additionally, in extreme cases, the Chairs have the veto power, but this should be seen as the nuclear weapon: we really want to try hard to avoid using it. In terms of day-to-day implementation: For not-so-important decisions, I expect the orga team to just make the decisions. For major decisions, I expect the orga team to build a proposal, and ask the Chairs for approval. In most cases, the Chairs should just approve the orga team's proposal. If there's something seriously wrong with the orga team's proposal, the Chairs should make sure that the orga team is aware of their concerns, and make the final decision based on the orga team's feedback and the severity of the problems. I'm open to changing the model, but: - I would like to keep it quite simple (the current proposal is 32 lines) - I don't want a model that is specific to a particular edition of DebConf. It should be a model that we are comfortable using for the next five DebConf, and that we would have been comfortable using for the last five DebConf. Additionally, at least one Chair would like to step down. I'd welcome suggestions of people that the DC14 and DC15 teams would be comfortable working with. Please take it as "There's a risk that we won't get Lucas to change his mind, so let's at least try to put the best people we can think of as Chairs!" :) Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
Hi, On 26/04/14 at 23:42 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > 2. The organization should remain loyal to Debian > > See 1. > Going against Debian's best interest now or in the future would not > only be stupid beyond description, it would also wipe out our > collective reputations and remove the common cause that unites us as > DebConf15 team members. > > At Lucas' request, we are working with our German lawyer to add > something like "board members must be DDs" or similar into our > constitution, but this will be a non-trivial legal construct, > especially given that the Verein (association) is legally required to > be an independent legal entity whose highest decision-making body is > the members' assembly. Therefore, it'll be really hard to codify > external influence as requested. For the German tax office, it'll be a > stretch to bestow authority to an international formation such as > Debian, and we certainly want to avoid having to explain what Debian > is and how we make decisions. > Whether we can make this happen or not: the board needs to approve new > members before they can join and thus vote anyway. As a consequence, > hostile take-over is very unlikely. I personally think that this could be enough, but would welcome more opinions on that. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
On 26/04/14 at 23:42 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Before anyone raises this point: Yes, we tried contacting[1] FFIS, but > they have not even answered in more than four weeks; we are not > confident that they would be more reactive going forward and do not > consider them an option any more. > > [...] > > Also, at least > Ganneff and me would be willing to carry on the e.V. after DebConf15 > if this is deemed useful to Debian. Given FFIS' performance (the above > isn't a one-time event only, it's been this way for a long time), this > seems likely. I think that we need to be very careful here. Being a TO is very difficult. And building a TO that is sufficiently reliable, over several years, is even more difficult. It's not a surprise that organizations such as SPI have grown to hold assets for several projects, because scaling up is a way to amortize the costs of the various involved processes. Also, most of the organizations holding Debian's assets have at times encountered some problems. More diversity among TOs has some useful features, but also some downsides: it becomes harder to make large expenses if funds are split over several organizations; it requires more coordination work from auditors. Similarly to how DSA is trying to reduce the number of datacenters hosting Debian machines, it makes sense to keep a quite low number of TOs just to keep the interaction overhead low. So I'm not against considering the idea of keep the DC15 TO after DC15, but this will clearly have to be weighted against the disadvantages of this option. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] Chairs nominations & feedback on possible chairs
Hi, As you know, both Holger and Gunnar stepped down from their role as DebConf chairs. I would like to warmly thank them both for their contributions to DebConf organization, and I hope to see them around, maybe a bit more relaxed, at DC14! There's also an ongoing discussion on DebConf governance, and the role of the chairs. While of course the DPL gets to write the delegation's content, I would like to avoid focusing too much on that for now. There might be some things to change in the role of the chairs, but I believe that the exact balance and sharing of roles should be found by adjusting to the organizing team of each DebConf edition, possibly building a larger framework. So: 1) As I already did in <20140426191421.gb19...@xanadu.blop.info>, I'd like to issue a call for nominations for chairs. If you feel that someone (including yourself, possibly) would be a suitable DebConf chair, please send me a private mail. 2) One important criterion for the selection of a DebConf chair is that DebConf organizers, including the local team, should be comfortable working with him/her. I don't want to do a public review of all possible candidates, but I'd like to offer each team (DC14 and DC15) the opportunity to name up to 2 people that will be able to give their feedback on the list of possible candidates. I'd like to move quickly on that, so the deadline for both (1) and (2) is 2014-04-30. On the separation between chairs and organizers: Chairs are obviously people who care deeply about DebConf, so it would not be surprising for them to be involved in DebConf organization in addition to their chairs role. However, both to provide "separation of powers", and to avoid putting too much burden on the same shoulders, I think that we should avoid having people who have central roles in DebConf organization be chairs at the same time. Thanks, Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
On 02/05/14 at 19:47 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Dear all, > > as announced some time ago, we will incorporate DebConfDeutschland > e.V. tomorrow. > > All founding members will be DDs with the full list being sent as a > reply to this email after the fact. > > > Given that: > > * We will not be using the name "Debian" > * We are not planning to run for more than necessary for DC15 > > We would like to know: > > * If we need TO status > * Assuming yes, what the next steps are Hi, Given that DebConfDeutchscland e.V. will still hold Debian funds, I think that it should become a TO. After all, the process is quite simple, and I don't expect any problems. As you already described how you met the TO criteria in , I think that we can safely say that the minimum two weeks discussion period started on 2014-04-26 (and thus ends on 2014-05-11). Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
Hi, On 03/05/14 at 10:54 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > As you already described how you met the TO criteria in > > , > > I think that we can safely say that the minimum two weeks discussion > > period started on 2014-04-26 (and thus ends on 2014-05-11). > > Works for me. Just to make sure: This means that unless someone raises > objections, we can expect you to rubberstamp our status (and tell us > what, if anything, else we need to do at that time?) Yes > From the docs, the last step is not entirely clear to me, but it > really seems to be as simple as you saying "they are TO, please add to > your list" and sending to auditor@ The last step was never used so far AFAIK. But it could probably be implemented as a d-d-a email providing the updated list of TOs, and a page on the Debian website listing TOs and referencing the d-d-a email. (Similar to delegations and https://www.debian.org/intro/organization) Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity
Hi, On 20/05/14 at 14:26 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > Dear all, > > is there anything more I can (or need to) do? No, that's on my TO-DO list now. Thanks, Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Request for Videoteam Budget increase
Hi, On 09/08/14 at 23:21 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Samstag, 9. August 2014, Moray Allan wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:18:14PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote: > > > The DebConf Videoteam requests a budget increase for DebConf 14. > > > > > > Shipping cost Chicago <-> Portland of Carl Karsten's gear:$2000 > > > Rental of screens, projectors and PA speakers for 3 rooms: $900 > > > Purchase of hdmi to vga converters for presenters' laptops:$200 > > > Buffer for miscellaneous expenses: > > > (duct tape, batteries, unexpected/broken stuff, etc) $500 > > > > > > - > > > > > >Total: $3600 > > > > I don't see any problem here as a Chair, so it is approved from my > > perspective, subject to the comments already in this thread that > > miscellaneous expenses should be spelt-out or contained in the general > > buffer, and that we should of course continue to seek ways to keep > > spending to a minimum, such as by borrowing items or finding cheaper > > ways to rent them. > > > > As this is a new line item it would be polite to ping the DPL to ask > > for either agreement that this isn't a material change from the > > previous DPL-approved budget, or a new approval. > > agreed, adding Lucas via leader@d.o to the loop so he can comment. Hi, I agree with what Moray said above. Additionally, if there's a need to expand the DebConf 14 budget due to unforeseen expenses related to the video team needs, I would rather get this request from Steve as he did most of the work on the DebConf budget, rather than from the video team directly. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Request for Videoteam Budget increase
Hi, On 11/08/14 at 20:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:14:13PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 09/08/14 at 23:21 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > On Samstag, 9. August 2014, Moray Allan wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:18:14PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote: > > > > > The DebConf Videoteam requests a budget increase for DebConf 14. > > > > > > Shipping cost Chicago <-> Portland of Carl Karsten's gear: > > > > > $2000 > > > > > Rental of screens, projectors and PA speakers for 3 rooms: > > > > > $900 > > > > > Purchase of hdmi to vga converters for presenters' laptops: > > > > > $200 > > > > > Buffer for miscellaneous expenses: > > > > > (duct tape, batteries, unexpected/broken stuff, etc) > > > > > $500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > >Total: > > > > > $3600 > > > > > I don't see any problem here as a Chair, so it is approved from my > > > > perspective, subject to the comments already in this thread that > > > > miscellaneous expenses should be spelt-out or contained in the general > > > > buffer, and that we should of course continue to seek ways to keep > > > > spending to a minimum, such as by borrowing items or finding cheaper > > > > ways to rent them. > > > > > As this is a new line item it would be polite to ping the DPL to ask > > > > for either agreement that this isn't a material change from the > > > > previous DPL-approved budget, or a new approval. > > > > agreed, adding Lucas via leader@d.o to the loop so he can comment. > > > I agree with what Moray said above. Additionally, if there's a need to > > expand the DebConf 14 budget due to unforeseen expenses related to the > > video team needs, I would rather get this request from Steve as he did > > most of the work on the DebConf budget, rather than from the video team > > directly. > > Well, budget approval is a chair/DPL function. I can confirm that we have > the money available in DebConf14's accounts to pay for this without drawing > any additional funds from Debian; and these are clearly necessary expenses > for the conference, that we failed to account for previously. So, modulo > doubts about the price of the video converters, and the belief that the > video team should not have a separate line item for "misc expenses", this > request has my support. OK, then I'm fine with that (without a specific 'buffer' line) Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Updating the DebConf Chairs delegation
Hi, On 16/08/14 at 14:46 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > I pointedly asked you in our private discussions: what problem are you > trying to solve by appointing additional DebConf chairs? > > You did not respond to this question. > > Instead, you have delegated new chairs, reproducing the previous broken > structure. > > [...] > > I would hope to have a constructive discussion about DebConf governance > while we are all together in a week at DebConf14. But I am dismayed by this > delegation right beforehand, which I think reflects a misunderstanding of > the actual problems that face the DebConf team. Most of Debian teams (delegated or not) are small groups using consensus to make decisions. This provides a number of features, including: - the ability to make better decisions by taking more viewpoints into account (which is especially important for DebConf chairs, since this is mainly a non-technical role with many potential social/cultural issues) - redundancy, when one member goes MIA for non-Debian reasons - splitting/sharing the powers over several people I'm not sure why you think that a single chair would be an improvement, but I don't agree with that. I agree that DebConf chairs are sometimes under more pressure than other teams to make quick decisions due to the timely nature of DebConf organization. But I don't think that this is a sufficient reason to give up on consensus. Instead, it probably means that DebConf chairs is a team which needs to be as proactive as possible at uncovering possible problems, to limit the urgent decisions to the bare minimum. But then, I agree with you that we don't have a good shared understanding of the problems of the current DebConf governance. But we also do not have a good shared understanding of the solutions. There are many different ways to organize Free Software conferences, and if we make major changes to how we organize DebConf, or organize the organization of DebConf, we should make sure that we understand where we are going. I would very much like to participate in discussions about this during DebConf'14, together with the DebConf chairs. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf orga/governance sessions at DC14
Hi, On 19/08/14 at 13:24 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > I fully side with Steve in thinking that the delegation was > a mistake and set you all up for misery. We should fix much more > than filling in vacant positions for unclear roles in an > organisational structure that evidently isn't up to the task. I think that you have repetitively been doing the same mistake about the DebConf chairs delegation. The DebConf chairs delegation does not define an organisational structure for DebConf. What it defines is an interface between the DebConf team and the rest of the Debian project. Using a technical metaphor, the DebConf chairs group is a monitoring infrastructure, or watchdogs, for DebConf organization: they ensure that it works, and sometimes make the hard decisions when needed. Note that I don't see the DebConf chairs as necessarily part of the DebConf team: they could take a fully external stance to monitor the orga team. Of course, it's probably easier if they take part in meetings and discussions to provide earlier feedback, but it's clearly not a requirement. And of course, they don't have to be involved in DebConf organization outside of this monitoring role. So I think that there are two different questions: 1) DebConf organization/structure/governance "How should we organize DebConf? How much of the work should be local/global? Which teams? How much freedom should be given to each local team to differ from the 'template organization'?" As the DPL, I think that it's important that the DebConf team has this discussion, but as the DPL, I also don't really care about the answer: it's an internal matter of the DebConf team, and not something where the DPL should meddle. 2) Relationship with the rest of Debian "How does this fit within the larger Debian project? Which safety mechanisms? Who gets to decide in fine, when everything else has been tried?" The current answer to that question is that I (and the Project, through their delegation) trust Martín, Moray and Tassia with the hard work of monitoring the DebConf organization and ensuring that it works. It's possible that there are better answers to that question, and I'm open to discussing them with everybody interested. My 2 cents about the current discussion: Based on the discussions so far, I still fail to understand how the proposed governance changes (e.g. https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/GovernanceProposal14++) address the problems that were perceived in the past. As Didier wrote, I think that clearer statements of the problems, with the POV of various parties, would help a lot. I'm thinking of statements such as: "As a chair during the DCn organization, I felt that ..." "As a member of the local team during the DCn organization, I felt that ..." "As a member of the sponsorship team during the DCn organization, I felt that ..." etc. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf subteams list
Hi, On 12/10/14 at 03:57 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > - In the slightly longer term, should we make subteam leads > > automatically/ex-officio become members of the DebConf Committee, for venue > > decisions etc.? > > Yes. > I'd even scratch the comittee and replace it by The DebConf Team > (chairs + subteam leads). I think that we need to be a bit careful here, and remember that one of the main purposes of DebConf is to serve Debian as the annual gathering of many contributors. If the DebConf Committee is composed solely of people deeply involved in DebConf organization, there's a risk that it will lose the global picture and optimize bid selection for itself (using the point of view of each DebConf sub-team rather than Debian as a whole). One solution to this, that was proposed during the sessions at DC14, was to form the DebConf committee with: - one half with DebConf chairs + sub-team leads. Of course, they would care about the global picture, but their main responsibility would be to "debug" bids regarding their teams' own focus: the Infrastructure sub-team lead would be expected to ask the questions about local network and internet connectivity, for example. - one half with Debian developers nominated by the DPL (or chosen by the project as whole through another mechanism, but I don't think that we need something more complex that just nomination by the DPL). They would also care about everything, but will mainly focus on ensuring that each bid best serves Debian, by e.g. outlining problems that would make a bid unsuitable for a large portion of the Debian community. If desirable, to reduce slightly the number of members, we could count debconf chairs as neutral, that is, have 2n+3 members, with n the number of sub-team leads. As a first step that could maybe be implemented for the DC16 bid selection, we could ensure that already-known sub-team leads become members of the DebConf committee, but keep current other members of the committee (they probably serve as a good-enough approximation of people that would be chosen by the DPL to represent Debian's interests). Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] budget approval process
Hi, I'm moving here a discussion that started on IRC about the budget approval process. First, I'd like to state that we need to be a bit flexible about the budget. We will only have the final budget (final numbers) after DC15. We don't know yet how much will be raised, nor how many attendees there will be. Until after DC15 (or shortly before DC15), we can only work on projections. It is likely, due to timing issues, that DC15 will have to borrow money from Debian (e.g. because some advance payment is due before sponsorship money is received). In order to authorize this, it is normal for the DPL to be given a global picture about the DebConf budget: the question the DPL needs to answer is "is the budget sane enough to move forward, or am I putting Debian funds at risk by backing DC15 using Debian funds?" I understand that you are at the point that you have something ready to review. That's great! :-) I'd like to process to be the following: - budget team sends the budget to the debconf team, to ask for feedback and detect possible things that could have been forgotten. (the budget team needs to consider demands and match them with reality -- it's possible that not everything can be funded) - budget team sends the budget to debconf chairs for review (and possibly integrates feedback) - the debconf chairs forward the budget to the DPL, with their advice (ranging from "everything is OK" to "we should be careful about that"). - the DPL considers the debconf chairs' advice and makes a decision accordingly. In the presented budget, I'd like to see some elements about "risk handling": What would happen if we raised 30% less than expected, 20% less than expected, 10% less than expected? And the answer should probably not be "oh, Debian will naturally pay the difference from its reserves" or "we will remove all travel sponsorship from our budget". This part doesn't need to be very detailed. A list of possible cost saving moves, with estimate savings, and priorities, would be enough. FAQ: Q: Why aren't the chairs delegated to approve the budget? A: The reason is that approving the budget usually means approving the use of Debian money (to partially fund DebConf). Concretely, it would mean authorizing an unlimited use of Debian money. Q: Does every change to the budget need to go through that process? A: Minor changes don't need to. Major changes need to. I let chairs decide on what is "minor" or "major". Basically, it boils down to: "what changes are the chairs comfortable with approving themselves, which also means being responsible for?". I would also expect all changes that touch more than 10k€, or that increase the needed amount of Debian money, to be presented to the DPL. Q: So why involve the chairs at all? A: The chairs are the ones trusted by the project to know what organizing DebConf involves, so they are the best placed to advise the DPL on whether the proposed budget makes sense. Q: Isn't the process too complex? A: I don't think so. Informing the team feels quite natural. Using chairs as proxy too. If there's a discussion between the budget team and chairs about some aspects, the thread can simply be forwarded to the DPL to avoid repeating the same arguments when the budget is presented to the DPL. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] budget approval process
On 14/10/14 at 16:46 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2014-10-14 14:25 +0200]: > > - budget team sends the budget to debconf chairs for review (and > > possibly integrates feedback) > > - the debconf chairs forward the budget to the DPL, with their advice > > (ranging from "everything is OK" to "we should be careful about > > that"). > > - the DPL considers the debconf chairs' advice and makes a decision > > accordingly. > > I find this troublesome in multiple ways: > > [ ... ] It seems that if we change the process to: - budget team sends the budget for review to debconf chairs + DPL (who will give the final approval) It addresses your major concerns: - there's only one discussion (less complexity) - the budget team is presenting the budget to the DPL, not the chairs While at the same time, it addresses most of my concerns: - the DebConf chairs are not circumvented, and still get the first say - the decision about the overall allocation of Debian funds is still made by the DPL Would that work for you? > If it looks like we'll fail to meet the approved budget (which may > well already include Debian funds as income), then we might need to > investigate the possibility for Debian to commit more funds ahead of > time. Until more funds are committed, the budget won't be met, other > sources of income have to be sought, and expenses cut. This is the > whole purpose of budgeting. I disagree with that. Expenses should be decided based on their importance, not based on whether money is available at a given time. If you do the latter, you end up with situations where travel sponsorship cannot be allocated because there's not enough sponsorship money received *yet*. > If DebConf e.V. fails to pay bills in the end, then it is primarily > our responsibility to deal with that, not Debian's. We are making > a budget and trying to approach DC15 with all of our professional > experience combined to prevent this from happening. Proper budgeting > (in combination with good books and controlling) means that we (a) > find out about problems before they arise, and (b) can identify > sensible ways forward quickly without scrambling for answers when we > don't have the time. It might primarily be DebConf e.V.'s responsibility, but it's primarily Debian's problem if we fail to organize a DebConf that meets Debian's needs. So it's also up to Debian to ensure that DebConf will be a success. > > In the presented budget, I'd like to see some elements about "risk > > handling": What would happen if we raised 30% less than expected, > > 20% less than expected, 10% less than expected? And the answer > > should probably not be "oh, Debian will naturally pay the > > difference from its reserves" or "we will remove all travel > > sponsorship from our budget". This part doesn't need to be very > > detailed. A list of possible cost saving moves, with estimate > > savings, and priorities, would be enough. > > The budgets I've worked with usually come with worst/base/best-case > scenarios. The base case is the one to aim for, but should new > information lead us to believe that we are not going to make it, or > that we could do more, then we can consult the worst- and best-case > scenarios to make suggestions for revisions. > > Would this work? > > In my experience, identifying concrete cost-saving steps at this > stage is lost effort. It's more important to have a good > understanding of the whole picture, and I think worst/base/best-case > scenarios are best for that. I would prefer to have a rough common agreement on priorities in terms of cost reduction. We can leave that discussion for later, but it should happen before expenses that are lower priority are made (or decisions that have consequences on such expenses). > > Q: So why involve the chairs at all? > > A: The chairs are the ones trusted by the project to know what > >organizing DebConf involves, so they are the best placed to > >advise the DPL on whether the proposed budget makes sense. > > Two points to this, and I am not trying to start a flamefest. If you > feel like I am in error still, please reply in a separate thread at > least. I am annoyed by how you are making demands about appropriate ways to reply to your statement. I am not interested in having a meta-discussion about the role of Chairs now. We have had enough of that in the past. > > Q: Isn't the process too complex? > > A: I don't think so. Informing the team feels quite natural. Using > > chairs as proxy too. If there's a discussion between the budget team > > a
Re: [Debconf-team] budget approval process
Hi, I think that the root of our disagreement is that you are discussing how things should be in an ideal world. Unfortunately, things are rarely in an ideal state in Debian, and that's what often makes Debian so fun and so frustrating at the same time. I fully agree with you that in an ideal world, Debian should just define an annual budget, including its contribution to DebConf, and that the DPL shouldn't be involved past that initial budget allocation. However, reality shows that during most recent editions of DebConf: (1) Debian has had to commit more money than initially planned at some point (or at least that was discussed during one of the numerous budget crisis) (2) the final numbers are quite different from what was initially discussed (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way) So from my point of view, in reality approving the DebConf budget is not so much about saying "Debian agrees to contribute up to x". It's more about saying "Debian agrees to contribute up to x, and, given the overall budget, is prepared to extend its commitment to what is necessary so that we can have a successful DebConf." Given that, looking only at history, it seems likely that the budget will be discussed again, I think that it is desirable that the DPL is involved right from the start. I understand that the DC15 team is trying to do better, and I am very impressed by how things have been going on so far. But still. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] budget approval process
On 15/10/14 at 17:07 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > So from my point of view, in reality approving the DebConf budget > > is not so much about saying "Debian agrees to contribute up to x". > > It's more about saying "Debian agrees to contribute up to x, and, > > given the overall budget, is prepared to extend its commitment to > > what is necessary so that we can have a successful DebConf." > > What's the difference between what you suggest and Debian just > committing (up to) y from the start, given that any surplus comes > back to Debian anyway and we won't use money from Debian to fund > expenses beyond the worst-case-budget? There is none, except that y = ~100k€ (in a worst case budget without any additional sponsors, and no professional/corporate attendees, which I agree is unlikely, but that's the point of a worst case budget). That is an amount of money that I don't think a DPL should prepare to spend without an understanding of how it would be going to be spent. > > Given that, looking only at history, it seems likely that the > > budget will be discussed again, I think that it is desirable that > > the DPL is involved right from the start. > > I have absolutely no problem with the DPL being involved from the > start. I just don't want to introduce formal dependencies that > contradict the chairs delegation and also the way fundraising, > budgeting, accounting, and controlling are designed to interface > with each other. I don't think that the chairs delegation contradicts what was written in that discussion. But if you feel that the delegation is unclear, maybe we need to clarify it. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] budget approval process
On 16/10/14 at 12:06 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2014-10-16 11:24 +0200]: > > > What's the difference between what you suggest and Debian just > > > committing (up to) y from the start, given that any surplus comes > > > back to Debian anyway and we won't use money from Debian to fund > > > expenses beyond the worst-case-budget? > > > > There is none, except that y = ~100k€ (in a worst case budget without > > any additional sponsors, and no professional/corporate attendees, which > > I agree is unlikely, but that's the point of a worst case budget). > > That is an amount of money that I don't think a DPL should prepare to > > spend without an understanding of how it would be going to be spent. > > And what is the amount "x" that you think Debian could allocate to > DebConf without the DPL having an understanding of how exactly it > will be spent? You are trying to frame me as willing to meddle into details of the DebConf'15 budget. I wrote "without an understanding of how it would be going to be spent". You are asking about "without the DPL having an understanding of how *exactly* it will be spent". I am annoyed by that. I don't care about how exactly you plan to spend the DebConf15 budget. There are lots of things I don't need to know details about. But do you really think that the DPL should allocate 100k€ to DebConf organization without a vague idea of how it will be spent? We currently are in a situation where we don't have to make hard choices about money. But it could be the case that allocating 100k€ to DebConf organization would prevent buying a new server for our infrastructure. How do you suggest the DPL arbitrates between those expenses, then? To answer your specific question (minus "exactly"), ideally, x = 0€. However, when on September 20th you asked for some Debian money to cover the initial costs, and said 5000€ would be comfortable, I authorized such a transfer immediately without asking for any details. So the answer is probably that 5000€ <= x < y ;) Anyway, I don't think that there's much to gain from continuing that discussion, so this is the last email from me in this thread. Looking forward to a budget to review, Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] Q for Cape Town bid: attendees safety outside the venue
Hi, I was in Cape Town in May 2010 for a conference. I very much enjoyed it, and I would love to return there. However, one thing that worries me a bit in the context of DebConf is the safety of attendees when outside the venue (e.g. walking between the venue and accomodation). My understanding from back then is that it was absolutely not recommended to walk alone or in small groups at night. Some conference attendees had quite frightening (but harmless in the end, AFAIK) experiences. I don't know how much the situation improved since then (maybe the world cup caused an increase of crime rate at the time), but was wondering what were your thoughts (and maybe plans) about that, especially if the venue is not an all-in-one one, which could require attendees to walk outside late at night. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] proposal for combining ranking factors for travel grants
Hi,
Thanks for this impressive work. It's nice how it looks very fair
and very simple at the same time.
On 21/02/15 at 14:46 +0100, David Bremner wrote:
> h) In case we need to fund a partial "cohort", we need some way to order
>the cohort. We could sort that cohort according to contribution
>score. E.g. if our budget is between 5000 and 6500, we would fund 19
>but not 7. Or maybe a lottery, e.g. random permutation would be more
>fair.
I still have doubts about that. While it's nice to have an initial
budget to get an idea of where we are going regarding travel
sponsorship, I think that the ranking produced by the team could be used
to negociate the final amount. Based on the ordered list of cohorts, the
team could recommend drawing a line somewhere ("We recommend that the
first four groups are funded"), and I think that it would be totally
reasonable for the DPL to change the amount of Debian money used for
Debconf in light of the actual travel sponsorship requests.
> Congratulations. You either read the whole thing, or skipped to the end.
:-)
Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
Hi Martin, On 10/03/15 at 21:27 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks for all the feedback on the budget. I've updated the version > in Git, so please obtain the ODS file from here: > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debconf-data/dc15.git/tree/budget/budget.ods > > I refrain from creating a PDF because it's a pain to format. Sorry. The ODS is fine, thanks. I'd like to understand what is the worst case scenario from the Debian funding point-of-view, to get an understanding of what risks we are taking. Assuming (worst case, really) that: - there are no additional sponsors besides those already secured - we stick to the current levels for most expenses, except for items you consider "nice but clearly not mandatory for DebConf's success" (the band would be an example) What funding would be needed out of Debian's funds? Thanks, Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 11/03/15 at 10:45 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-11 10:08 +0100]: > > - there are no additional sponsors besides those already secured > > - we stick to the current levels for most expenses, except for items > > you consider "nice but clearly not mandatory for DebConf's success" > > (the band would be an example) > > > > What funding would be needed out of Debian's funds? > > None. > > If remain at status quo (change the two income scenarios at the top > of the Assumptions tab) and we switch to worst-case budgets > (Scenario in the Expenses tab), then the budget's balanced and we > still fund 35% of attendees with room&board, have full > video/infrastructure/travel budget, but need to cut e.g. conf > dinner, day trip, diversity outreach programme, band, karaoke, etc. > > So any funds from Debian would be used to enable those. > > I just did make some updates to the worst-case, so please get the > latest version from Git. Thanks, I see. Very well done. My other question is about the travel sponsorship amount. 30k€ seems quite low to me. How does it compare to past years? Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 11/03/15 at 13:16 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-11 11:18 +0100]: > > My other question is about the travel sponsorship amount. 30k€ seems > > quite low to me. How does it compare to past years? > > DC14 : 45k USD incl. newbies initiative, 36k USD from Debian >(still don't have the numbers on how this was used) > > DC13 : 25k CHF plus 20k CHF newbies, 20k CHF from Debian >(no numbers on how this was used) > > DC12 : could not find budget > > DC11 : 35k EUR, no further information found. > > So yes, we're at the low end of things. > > There is a position in the budget (backed travel sponsorship), which > is currently 0. Feel free to pour any Debian funds into it. Just let > me know! ;) So there's a number of things that might be nice to have, but are not mandatory for the success of DebConf: - additional travel sponsorship (based on a recommendation from the bursaries team, = do they recommend we sponsor more people than currently possible?) - social events: conf dinner, day trip - diversity outreach program - other social stuff: band, karaoke I think that it would be better to wait for a recommandation from the bursaries team about additional funding before we commit to spending money on some of the other items from this list. Put differently, if Debian funding is needed, I might prefer to direct it first to additional travel sponsorship, rather than to social stuff. Would that work for you? Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 11/03/15 at 14:48 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-11 13:59 +0100]: > > > There is a position in the budget (backed travel sponsorship), > > > which is currently 0. Feel free to pour any Debian funds into > > > it. Just let me know! ;) > […] > > Put differently, if Debian funding is needed, I might prefer to > > direct it first to additional travel sponsorship, rather than to > > social stuff. Would that work for you? > > Isn't that precisely what I said? > > While some "entertainment" is truly optional, day trip and conf > dinner are not. They've become a tradition, and they are also > important events for each year's team to organise and be proud of. > > I really wouldn't like it very much to unilaterally sponsor more and > more people while keeping the rest of the conference on > a shoestring. We do have people paying for themselves, and we should > not forget about them. > > So let's just consider the following proposal: > > DC14 received 36k USD from Debian (and returned it). How about you > make 30k EUR available for DC15, which we allocate exclusively for > travel sponsorship and reduce some of the already allocated funds to > other items in the (worst-case) budget, e.g. conf dinner and day > trip? I'd say 15k, which would leave us with 45k EUR travel > sponsorship, which is *more* than we had in the past years. > > And if we get more funds from sponsors (which I am assuming/hoping), > then those 30k can get paid back after the conference. > > Would this be something to consider? Maybe, but is that a discussion that we need to have now, or can we have it after the bursaries team will have looked at applications? Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 11/03/15 at 15:50 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-11 15:06 +0100]: > > Maybe, but is that a discussion that we need to have now, or can > > we have it after the bursaries team will have looked at > > applications? > > Well, catch-22: for bursaries to be able to make decisions, they > need an approved budget… at least this is how I know things to work. > The alternative you are suggesting I'd describe as "raising the > money once you know how much you want to spend." Both are valid > approaches, but I'd only call one of them "budgeting" ;) My understanding of the work of the bursaries was that the outcome was an ordered list of groups of applicants g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, and that the consequence was something such as: - if we want to sponsor only g1, it costs 10 k€ - if we want to sponsor only g1+g2, it costs 20 k€ - if we want to sponsor only g1+g2+g3, it costs 29 k€ etc. I agree that for making the final decision about who will get sponsored, a travel sponsorship budget is needed. But I don't see why you need to know the travel sponsorship budget to split requests in groups. Also, it will then turns the question into e.g. "should we rather sponsor G4, or have a jukebox?" which seems much easier to discuss. - Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 11/03/15 at 17:55 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-11 16:50 +0100]: > > I agree that for making the final decision about who will get > > sponsored, a travel sponsorship budget is needed. But I don't see > > why you need to know the travel sponsorship budget to split > > requests in groups. > > Do you have a maximum amount of Debian funds you can allocate to > bursaries to do their work when they have sighted the applications > in April? Or a target? No, not really. I'm really open to hearing what they think. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 11/03/15 at 20:49 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-11 18:53 +0100]: > > > Do you have a maximum amount of Debian funds you can allocate to > > > bursaries to do their work when they have sighted the > > > applications in April? Or a target? > > > > No, not really. I'm really open to hearing what they think. > > Ok. > > My task is to get a budget approved and my deadline is February, so > I am late. I think that we should clarify what 'budget approval' means, maybe. From my perspective, it means: - Chairs and DPL have looked at it, and are fine with the general shape of it - We agree on a plan about how to address the remaining questions - Changes can still be made, but major changes require discussion with Chairs and/or DPL > I have a vested interest to move this forward now, > especially since we have some decisions to make in March, e.g. the > conference dinner needs a dry signature by the end of this month > (before bursaries can start). Arg, I wasn't aware of that, and was assuming that none of the 'optional stuff' required funding decisions that early. > I interpret your statements to mean that we should not include any > Debian funds in the budget at this point, but that you're willing to > engage with bursaries to assess needs once those are known and work > with them to ensure that the needs and goals are met. > > Therefore, I have committed a new budget (proposal), with — in the > worst case only — 15k less for travel sponsorship, but enabling conf > dinner¹ and a basic day trip. > > Here's my rationale: > > The previously allocated, worst-case travel sponsorship of 30k is at > the lower end but definitely comparable to previous years > (unfortunately, no numbers exist about how money was actually used). > > I think Debian can easily allocate 15k to DC15, especially if such > funds go exclusively towards funding travel of people wishing to > attend. > > Any additional Euro Debian is willing to allocate once the bursaries > data are known will go toward increasing the amount of travel > sponsorship, as well as the rate of sponsored people, which is > currently at 35 % (i.e. 1 out of 3 people gets room&board paid for). > > If we manage to reach our fundraising goals, then the travel > sponsorship budget accounted for out of our own income increases to > 30k, so Debian's 15k will push it to 45k EUR, which is the highest > it's ever been. > > Furthermore, I am reasonably confident that the budget is planned > "conservatively" and the outlook is green, such that we will be able > to repay those advances by Debian, and contribute out of our own > strength towards meeting one of the DebConf goals and getting (even) > more people involved. > > At the same time, we are ensuring that we can move on towards what > some consider important and "not-so-optional" stuff, e.g. conf > dinner and day trip without entering risks that could later cause > problems or discussions, at least. > > ¹) The conf dinner is a tradition by now and we must not forget that > the majority of DebConf attendees fund their own attendance. Plus, > it's an important event for the local team with high motivational > value, and people are already working on it. So while we're > definitely making sure to stay within reasonable bounds in terms of > costs and what we offer, I don't think the conf dinner is to be > considered entirely optional anymore, as long as it stays well > grounded. Our idea for DC15 is just that, regionally typical too, > and promising to be a memorable evening. > > Hoping this makes sense and can be agreed upon, OK, I think I can live with the above (provided the chairs agree as well). However, please don't consider it for granted that we will use all the travel sponsorship budget. How much is used should still be based on the evaluation and recommendation by the bursaries. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 12/03/15 at 10:18 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-12 09:49 +0100]: > > I think that we should clarify what 'budget approval' means, maybe. From > > my perspective, it means: > > - Chairs and DPL have looked at it, and are fine with the general shape > > of it > > - We agree on a plan about how to address the remaining questions > > - Changes can still be made, but major changes require discussion with > > Chairs and/or DPL > > Plus: > > - Funds can be used according to the budget lines, right away. > Changes made later need to take this into account, i.e. money that > has already been spent cannot be re-allocated. > > Ok? OK, then, provided the chairs agree as well (as they know more about the details than myself), I think I'm fine with all the expenses listed in the "worst case" scenario in the expense tab (except for the video team budget that is under discussion in another subthread). I'm also open to discussing the other expenses later. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 12/03/15 at 12:26 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-03-12 11:32 +0100]: > > OK, then, provided the chairs agree as well (as they know more > > about the details than myself), I think I'm fine with all the > > expenses listed in the "worst case" scenario in the expense tab > > (except for the video team budget that is under discussion in > > another subthread). > > What about the base case scenario? That's the actual budget we're > planning to work with, and there are other binding contracts that > need to be entered soon. I would prefer to hear from bursaries before we decide to direct funds to some of the items in the base case scenario. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 12/03/15 at 13:28 +0100, David Bremner wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum writes: > > > > I would prefer to hear from bursaries before we decide to direct funds > > to some of the items in the base case scenario. > > > > Just to be clear, do you mean you want to wait until after the bursaries > ranking process is complete before making that decision? I ask because > that is not likely to happen before mid-April, even for preliminary > numbers. Yes, that would be my preferred plan Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
My main interest is to ensure that DC15 is the most successful for the Debian project. For that, one of the main conditions is that enough contributors can attend the event. That's why the sponsorship budget is so important to me: to put it bluntly, I don't care if DC15 will be very enjoyable for its attendees, if it doesn't benefit the Debian project because not enough contributors are able to attend. The sponsorship budget is also a mystery: it varies a lot from year to year because of various factors (e.g. location), so it's very hard to know how much will be needed to cover travel costs for a sufficiently high number of contributors. Before we commit to expenses that I see as optional from the point of view of the "success for the Debian project" metric, I would like to make sure that the sponsorship budget is covered. We have already seen in this discussion that the 30k€ planned for travel sponsorship is quite low compared to previous years. I would be fine to add Debian funds on top of that, but I really think that expecting most of those 30k€ to come from DebConf fundraising is a reasonable target, and that this should be funded before funding social activities. I also have a question about the number of people sponsored for food+accomodation. In the 35% scenario, how does it compare to previous years? (both in terms of absolute number of attendees, and in terms of cost for self-paying attendees) Now, even if we are still 5 months away from DebConf, I understand that some specific expenses cannot wait until sufficient sponsorship money has been raised. I am open to discussing them on a case-by-case basis when necessary. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Budget (hopefully) ready for Thursday's discussion / approval
On 12/03/15 at 19:33 +, Philip Hands wrote: > martin f krafft writes: > > ... > >> Before we commit to expenses that I see as optional from the point > >> of view of the "success for the Debian project" metric, I would > >> like to make sure that the sponsorship budget is covered. > ... > > Given the conservative nature of my budget, after the conference, > > Debian will probably have *more* money (again) than you committed. > > Wow! Are we _really_ performing this traditional dance _again_? > > The one where we trudge around in a circle trying to guess if we'll have > enough money for sponsorship until those waiting for sponsorship lose > the will to live (or the opportunity to book cheap) and the problem thus > solves itself, but not in a way anyone wanted, and then later there's a > healthy surplus that makes the dithering at this stage look utterly > pathetic and we all agree never to do THAT again ... This did not happen for DC14. And I don't see how it would happen for DC15, given I've said many times that I was open to use Debian funds to cover additional travel sponsorship, on top of what is already provided though DC15 income. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Helping the budget get approved
Hi Martin, Thanks a lot for all your work, and for dealing with the required amount of bikeshedding (especially mine). At this point, I think that the question I am (as DPL) being asked, is whether we all can go forward given the current status and those projections, and deal with the possible fallouts together (which means that, if something fails very badly, we are fine with using Debian funds to cover for it). I think that the answer to that is "yes, we want to take this risk" (which this year, isn't that huge). However, before I commit to that answer, I still would like DebConf chairs to state whether they are fine with the current budget, i.e., whether all income and expenses are included and at a reasonable level according to their DebConf experience. Of course some of them will need to be refined (the video team budget is still waiting for feedback from the team AFAIK), but as Martin outlined, we have some space for that. Regarding this: On 21/03/15 at 09:50 +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > If this is not possible because you need to keep the option open to > increase the bursaries budget to X,¹ then I suggest Debian commit to > giving us X. The DebConf budget already includes 30,000€ for travel sponsorship, and the budget does not include any contribution from Debian funds at this point. I agree that this is a reasonable level for DC15 (it should probably be re-assessed for DC16, where the overall travel costs will likely be higher -- let's not assume that 30k€ will work for every edition of DebConf). I agree that if more funds are need for travel sponsorship, Debian funds could be used. I have one small request: during the discussions, it was very useful to frame the current assumptions (travel sponsorship amount, % sponsored, nb attendees, etc.) in an historical perspective. Could you add a tab in the budget with the historical data you know about? I know it's also in emails etc, but it will be handy in the future to have it somewhere easy to find. (pointers to emails in the archives could work too, but debconf-team@ is not archived on lists.d.o) Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Helping the budget get approved
Hi, On 23/03/15 at 16:45 -0400, Tassia Camoes Araujo wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:44:37AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > At this point, I think that the question I am (as DPL) being asked, is > > whether we all can go forward given the current status and those > > projections, and deal with the possible fallouts together (which means > > that, if something fails very badly, we are fine with using Debian funds > > to cover for it). > > > > I think that the answer to that is "yes, we want to take this risk" > > (which this year, isn't that huge). However, before I commit to that > > answer, I still would like DebConf chairs to state whether they are fine > > with the current budget, i.e., whether all income and expenses are > > included and at a reasonable level according to their DebConf > > experience. > > > In general terms the Chairs are fine with the budget, we acknowledge that all > incomes and expenses are included and at a reasonable level. > > We agree with the amount of funds reserved to bursaries at this point. > Considering the importance of bursaries for the success of DebConf, we are > glad > to see that we are able to reserve a good sum of funds to it, thanks to the > good work of the Fundraising team. > > Regarding the conference dinner, we acknowledge the team's efforts to > lower its price although we still believe the final sum is high. If the team > is > 100% sure that there is no cancelation fee, we think that the contract can be > signed. However, in the case of further needs from bursaries, the contract > should be reduced/cancelled or more funds need to be raised. > > We understand that minor expenses already on the budget can be made/approved > directly by team leads. Anything of a greater importance, or that was included > in this budget just as a rough estimative, should still be submitted to > dc-team. Based on the above, I am happy to confirm the approval of the DebConf'15 budget. Regarding the conference dinner budget vs bursaries budget issue, I'm open to a discussion about engaging Debian funds if that proves needed. > Thanks to everyone who was somehow involved in this process. Yes, thanks a lot. Great work! Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] [Coordination] Timeline changes proposal for DC16
On 25/08/15 at 10:42 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum writes: > >> > > >> > From past experience, the bursaries needs more than one months. The > >> > important part is travel sponsorship, especially for Cape Town, and this > >> > take much time. But let’s see commentary of bursaries team. (OTOH on > >> > your timeline, we have 2 months before opening registration and an > >> > additional month before sponsored registration close, so enough time. > >> > > >> > On past we had A queue and B-C-… queues. Possibly only A queue is > >> > processed in such timeline (and other people are notified about they > >> > status), so that when sponsored people cancel, we can move fund to the > >> > next one. > >> > >> One month for bursaries is tight, but doable if we are well prepared. 1 > >> 1/2 months would be better. It mostly needs someone to drive the process > >> as David did it this year. > >> > >> At the bursaries Bof we thought that the idea of sponsoring more people > >> as others cancel or don't need the sponsorship anymore worked quite well > >> this year. So we will continue to do that. > > > > This sounds wrong to me. For me, the role of bursaries is to decide, for > > a specific attendee, if s/he should be sponsored to attend or not. > > That's a yes/no question (a hard one, but still). If you end up needing > > more budget to cover the sponsorship for all those that should be > > sponsored, just ask for more money from Debian. > > I disagree that it's just a yes/no question. It's a ranking on two > dimensions (contributions to Debian and financial need of the > sponsoree). And for both it's not always obvious where to make the cut. Oh, sure, I'm not saying that it's easy. But David's cohorts-based algorithm still turns it into a yes/no question in the end (not about individual people, but about cohorts). Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] [Coordination] Timeline changes proposal for DC16
On 25/08/15 at 09:11 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > >> or people registering because we tell them to, but > >> then never reconfirming, because they don't intend to attend anymore. > > > > I don’t follow it. I think we will have the same problem with people > > not registering but with preregistration. > > But with calling it preregistration and making clear that it's mostly > for people who request sponsorship there will be less cancelations. Note that you have two conflicting goals here: - you want many people to register early, because you want a good estimate of how many people will attend - you want people to register only when they are sure they will attend, because you don't want people to cancel (or just don't show up, if sponsored) You might want to think of an incentive, or a penalty for bad behaviour, here. > >> The timeline of when things need to happen would be tied to the dates > >> for the conference. In order for bursaries to have decisions 3 months > >> before the conference (needed for not-so-expensive flight tickets), > >> the pre-registration needs to close 4 months before it. > >> Pre-registration needs to be open at least one month, maybe two. > > > > From past experience, the bursaries needs more than one months. The > > important part is travel sponsorship, especially for Cape Town, and this > > take much time. But let’s see commentary of bursaries team. (OTOH on your > > timeline, we have 2 months before opening registration and an additional > > month before sponsored registration close, so enough time. > > > > On past we had A queue and B-C-… queues. Possibly only A queue is > > processed in such timeline (and other people are notified about they > > status), so that when sponsored people cancel, we can move fund to the > > next one. > > One month for bursaries is tight, but doable if we are well prepared. 1 > 1/2 months would be better. It mostly needs someone to drive the process > as David did it this year. > > At the bursaries Bof we thought that the idea of sponsoring more people > as others cancel or don't need the sponsorship anymore worked quite well > this year. So we will continue to do that. This sounds wrong to me. For me, the role of bursaries is to decide, for a specific attendee, if s/he should be sponsored to attend or not. That's a yes/no question (a hard one, but still). If you end up needing more budget to cover the sponsorship for all those that should be sponsored, just ask for more money from Debian. But deciding that someone's attendance is not worth getting sponsored, and then, in the end, sponsoring it, sounds like throwing money out of the window. And on the other hand, deciding that someone should not be sponsored based on the initial assumption of the sponsorship budget, even if that person's attendance would be beneficial to DebConf/Debian, is a net loss for Debian. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] [Coordination] Timeline changes proposal for DC16
On 25/08/15 at 11:37 +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > > > On 25.08.2015 10:26, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 25/08/15 at 09:11 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > >> One month for bursaries is tight, but doable if we are well prepared. 1 > >> 1/2 months would be better. It mostly needs someone to drive the process > >> as David did it this year. > >> > >> At the bursaries Bof we thought that the idea of sponsoring more people > >> as others cancel or don't need the sponsorship anymore worked quite well > >> this year. So we will continue to do that. > > > > This sounds wrong to me. For me, the role of bursaries is to decide, for > > a specific attendee, if s/he should be sponsored to attend or not. > > That's a yes/no question (a hard one, but still). If you end up needing > > more budget to cover the sponsorship for all those that should be > > sponsored, just ask for more money from Debian. > > > > But deciding that someone's attendance is not worth getting sponsored, > > and then, in the end, sponsoring it, sounds like throwing money out of > > the window. And on the other hand, deciding that someone should not be > > sponsored based on the initial assumption of the sponsorship budget, > > even if that person's attendance would be beneficial to DebConf/Debian, > > is a net loss for Debian. > > Note: food and accommodation is really a yes/no. But travel > sponsorship, which requires a lot more money, is much more difficult. We > will not have enough money, IMHO, for most of the requests. Really? Debian currently has >$300k in reserves. If it's important for Debian to have more sponsored attendees, it probably makes sense to increase the amount of money we use for that. And then it would become the Debian project's problem to raise more money on a regular basis (but we do have ideas about that, such as moving from DebConf-targeted fundraising to Debian-targeted fundraising, and it's likely that there's quite a big margin between what we currently raise and what we could raise with a more organized fundraising infrastructure). (I'm not saying that the debconf sponsors team is doing a poor job -- they are doing a fantastic job given the options they currently have. But, for example, compare https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors and https://www.debian.org/partners/) Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Spending Debian money on travel sponsorship (was: Timeline changes proposal for DC16)
On 25/08/15 at 15:24 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> During early DC15 discussions, you didn't want to set aside even as
> much as 5k for our idea of "assured travel sponsorship". We ended up
> boosting the travel sponsorship budget by 3k out of our own cash
> flow. Bursaries worked within this budget, and I think they did
> a stellar job. They would have been able to fly in even more people
> ("say no fewer times") if we had given them some of Debian's money,
> but we did not. In the end, the process was over, the decisions
> made, and some people couldn't be accomodated. It was too late,
> I think, at this stage to ask for money from Debian to accomodate
> more.
That's just wrong. I've always been open to bursaries asking for more
money [from Debian] if they felt it was necessary to sponsor more people
that what they were able to. Someone made the decision not to ask the
DPL for additional funding after the ranking was made by the bursaries.
See:
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150311.155051.9eecb449.en.html
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150311.175304.e442e22b.en.html
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150312.113534.74ffa380.en.html
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150312.123810.ee211aff.en.html
I'm sorry that you decided to write the budget in stone, because you
felt that it was necessary for the bursaries to work, while it wasn't
from my POV, given what I wrote in
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20150311.155051.9eecb449.en.html
Lucas
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf budgeting (was: Spending Debian money on travel sponsorship)
On 25/08/15 at 20:22 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > So how does the following process sound? > > 1. Bursaries (and all other teams for themselves) gauges the > amount of money they'd like to have in their budget. This > is difficult and will take a few iterations, especially since > we're all new at this, so let's not wait too long… > > 2. We try to allocate budgeted funds in a sensible way, and > get the result approved as the first budget. > > 3. Now the teams can work within the funds available and progress > can be made on all fronts. While the income situation is > unclear, some positions will be budgeted more conservatively > than others, but things can keep moving, or at least it's clear > what can and cannot be done while not enough funds have been > raised. > > 4. When teams encounter that their needs are outside of budget, > they apply for a budget extension. In the case of the day trip > or entertainment, the answer might only be yes if the income > situation allows for it (requests should be processed > altogether at defined points in time). But in the case of e.g. > video team or travel sponsorship needs, Debian funds might get > allocated if the DC fundraising income does not provide for it. For the record (not that it matters much :-) ), that matches quite well how I hope the Debconf budget will work in the future. > Does this sound like something we could try? I wonder if it would help things a bit to have each time work with an specific interval of money they could receive. For example, the outreach team could say 'To do something useful, we need at least $1000 [sponsor one attendee], and I don't see how we could need more than $6000.' That's slightly more work for the teams because they need to think about the hypothesis of receiving more money, but that's something they should do anyway. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation (was: Re: DebConf meetings this week)
Hi, I think that it's useful to go back to the motivations for the delegation, and to what is actually written in it. I somehow have the impression that lots of people are talking about the chairs delegation without having taken a recent, deep look at it. You would have to ask Zack for his exact motivations for creating the role of DebConf chairs (given he wrote the first version of the delegation[1]), but from my POV as the author of the current text[2], which is more detailed but - I believe - similar in spirit to Zack's, the main purpose of the chairs is to provide a safety net around DebConf organization, so that the project as a whole (and the DPL in particular) can be confident that in the end, DebConf will happen and be sufficiently successful for the project's needs. As a safety net, their role is to "advise", "help", "monitor" (all main verbs from the delegation itself). They are responsible for the organization of DebConf, which means that they should feel that it's their fault when something important fails. This is different from being *in charge*: it is expected that they will ensure that everything necessary will happen, but not expected that they will suddenly do everything. Also, their only real power is the "veto" power when "a decision taken by the DebConf team is perceived by the DebConf chairs as creating serious risks for the organization of DebConf or for Debian". So in my mind, how this was supposed to work was that the DebConf team will be organizing DebConf as they wish, while the DebConf chairs will be around, to advise, watch and ensure and everything goes smoothly. When the DebConf chairs provide advice/opinions, the DebConf team should listen, because the DebConf chairs are believed to be clueful about DebConf, and also because ultimately, the DebConf chairs could veto the things being discussed. Of course, the veto power is a nuclear bomb, and should never be used. My motivation for keeping this quite strange role is that I believe that (1) it's important to have the main organizers (the DebConf team) be in charge, to keep them motivated (2) it's important to maintain a stable monitoring structure, because we have had many different DebConf teams over the years, and it's not always easy to trust them fully, right from the start of the process (3) it's a quite specific task in Debian, and also quite time-consuming, so I don't think that the DPL should do that work directly With the current models, ideally, the Chairs would: - have huge experience about organizing DebConf - not be too involved in the organization of the current DebConf(s), so that there's no conflict between opinions expressed a mere organizer, and opinions expressed as a chair - aim at the suitable mix between providing too much advise, and letting the orga team decide I haven't followed the current debate closely, so I won't comment on any specifics, except: On 23/09/15 at 13:15 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > I think this is a symptom of a problem that is actually built into the > current delegation. > > The delegation for the chairs only really provides one routinely usable > power: The power to rearrange teams That is not part of the current delegation. What is in the delegation is that the Chairs should "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure (such as defining sub-teams and the responsibilities of different roles) [...]." That's quite different. > The other (more exceptional) power that the chairs have to interfere > with day-to-day affairs is also problematic: overriding decisions > > While this is only used rarely, Actually, the value of that power is that it exists. But I don't think that it has ever been used. > the fact it exists undermines the > authority of those that really ought to have the right to make > day-to-day decisions. Clearly, if day-to-day decisions are being overriden, it's a big problem. > It would be much more healthy for the DPL's delegates to have the right > to give their blessing to the leader(s) that naturally emerge each year, > and in-extremis to withdraw that blessing if poor decisions are being > made and advice rejected, but not the right to override individual > decisions. Well, then you probably don't need the Chairs as intermediates here: the DPL could delegate the leader(s) directly, with much broader powers. Are we ready to do that? Maybe. A possible implementation could be that bids would come up with a 'DebConf organization bureau' they are comfortable with, and that the convincing bureau would be part of the overall evaluation by the DebConf committee. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg5.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/05/msg2.html - Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
On 27/09/15 at 23:33 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Joerg Jaspert dijo [Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:23:48AM +0200]: > > On 14073 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > With the current models, ideally, the Chairs would: > > [...] > > > - not be too involved in the organization of the current DebConf(s), > > > so that there's no conflict between opinions expressed a mere organizer, > > > and opinions expressed as a chair > > [...] > > > > This definition point alone would directly take out Cate as a chair, > > possibly Tassia and leave only Tincho, from what I saw from their > > involvement in actual DebConf organization. Not sure that thats the best > > thing. > > > > Depending on how one defines "too involved in the organization", but > > having chairs for the DebConf that are mostly just bystanders doesn't > > sound like the best idea for me. > > Yes, I also understood this to be precisely the opposite. During my > time as a Chair, my *main* Debian task was to be as close as possible > to DebConf organization, to be able to answer (or to point to right > answers) to questions about DebConf, be they originated in outsiders, > in Debian people, or in the orga-team(s?) themselves. We always tried > to have at least two chairs attend every meeting (true, we sometimes > failed to, but at least we tried hard to), usually chairing the > meetings. > > So, yes, as an ex-Chair, this is the only point in Lucas' mail that > made a big dissonance with me. Oh, sorry, I think I wasn't clear. Indeed I should have defined 'too involved'. Obviously Chairs should be following very closely DebConf organization, doing exactly what you describe, like staying a close as possible to DebConf orga, attending most meetings, etc. But at the same time, they shouldn't become team leads, or be in a position to make important decisions (as a DebConf organizer but not as a Chair). And while keeping up with information about DebConf organization, they should also probably refrain from commenting on each and every issue, when not asked to by the DebConf organizers. Giving enough space to the orga team so that they can make their own decisions, and their own edition of DebConf, while knowing when one should react and voice concerns/opinions, is of course a very difficult balance to find. That's what makes the role the most difficult... Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Fixing the Debconf Delagation
On 28/09/15 at 11:49 +0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: > On 23/09/15 18:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I haven't followed the current debate closely, so I won't comment on any > > specifics, except: > > On 23/09/15 at 13:15 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > >> I think this is a symptom of a problem that is actually built into the > >> current delegation. > >> > >> The delegation for the chairs only really provides one routinely usable > >> power: The power to rearrange teams > > > > That is not part of the current delegation. What is in the delegation is > > that the Chairs should "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure > > (such as defining sub-teams and the responsibilities of different roles) > > [...]." That's quite different. > > Yes. And it could be argued that we took a too executive role on this -I > acknowledged this to you in person in DC15- by leading the workshops, > compiling what we found to be a more-or-less consensus, and driving its > implementation. > > But I think it also should be acknowledged that this is the first time > that an actual attempt to solve the governance problems is put in place, > and it was 100% triggered by requests from orga members. When I accepted > the delegation, I had *no* intention of working so hard for so long on this. FTR, I think that the DC14 workshops were clearly in line with the "help the DebConf team define [...] a structure" power, i.e. that the Chairs were helping, not forcing a structure down on the DebConf organizers. But now I see that this might not be shared by everyone... > >> The other (more exceptional) power that the chairs have to interfere > >> with day-to-day affairs is also problematic: overriding decisions > >> > >> While this is only used rarely, > > > > Actually, the value of that power is that it exists. But I don't think > > that it has ever been used. > > It has been used, in situations where we felt that important parts of > DebConf were at risk: budgetary decisions, sponsors relationships, > volunteers motivation, and even some basic tenets of the conference were > at stake. Every time this happened, it was because somebody from the > local team acted on their own, overstepping other people's > responsibilities, and without prior consultation. > > I would like to ask fil or any of the people who think the chairs should > not exist what would they do in situations like these. Erm, the way I saw things when writing the delegation was that the Chairs were a kind of "DebConf Technical Committee". If the Chairs needed to override many decisions, there's clearly a problem, because (for example, maybe, just making wild guesses) the DebConf organizers have ignored the Chairs' advice, the Chairs have not been able to provide convincing advice, the DebConf organizers have made many conflictuous choices, or the Chairs have been intervening a bit too much. Maybe it would help to create a slightly more formal procedure for overrides, so that it's clear that it's no longer just advice, and that the Chairs agree on the need to override a specific decision? Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation
On 19/10/15 at 22:49 +0200, Daniel Lange wrote: > Dear team, > > as you may be aware the DebConf chairs have resigned two weeks ago. > I have had many discussions before and during DC15 with chairs and other > long time DebConf contributors about how to improve the DebConf > organization. > I also moderated a sprint during DC15 that (to me) showed the chair system > itself (not the persons serving as chairs) has inherent issues that we > should address. > Neil supports the team to come up with a governance proposal for him to > consider when issuing an updated DebConf delegation. > > As of today (aka my back in the office and before leaving again deadline), > there are two proposals that people came up with to provide some initial > thoughts for the discussion in the DebConf team: > > Alternative I: Two delegates (Controller and Continuity), very clear > responsibilities, election after initial delegation terms end > https://titanpad.com/DC16-draft-delegation-proposal So, the way I understand it, this proposal does three things: 1) explicitely restrict the decisions which the chairs can interact with. I understand that the goal here is to avoid chairs that will nitpick about each and every decision. I'm a bit concerned that the current list does not cover all the opportunities for causing serious harm to DebConf organization. The wording of this in the current delegation is: When necessary, e.g. when the DebConf team's inability to make a decision has an major impact on DebConf organization, or when a decision taken by the DebConf team is perceived by the DebConf chairs as creating serious risks for the organization of DebConf or for Debian, the DebConf chairs can override specific decisions. I'm still not sure whether the problems arose from the scope of this wording, or from an inability from chairs and the DebConf team to work within this wording. I wonder if what's missing isn't a stricter process for chairs to communicate that they are making a statement as chairs. Really, I think that the technical committee sets a good example here (about how to restrict the discussion about a specific question, how to make a clear decision, and how to communicate it). 2) move the chairs selection process from designation by the DPL to election by the DebConf team. Given that the chairs are supposed to protect the Debian Project from serious issues with DebConf organization, I find it backward that the DebConf team is able to self-select the controllers. Of course it's obvious that the DebConf team should have a say about possible chairs (to ensure that they are fine with working with the chairs), but I think that an election goes to far. I wonder if a suitable result could not be achieved with a negociation between the team and the DPL about possible chairs for a specific edition of DebConf. (The important change here would be that chairs would be nominated for a specific edition of DebConf, which makes it possible to choose them based on the ability to work with specific organizers) 3) The proposed delegation also increases the power of the chairs by putting them in charge on selecting the location of the next DebConf (if I get this right -- I'm not sure of how to read "decide on the team awarded the right to conduct the N+1 DebConf"), and in charge of selection a "DebConfXX project leader". I'm not sure that this is necessary: - will that really help in improving the DebConf bid selection process? - do we really want to force each and every DebConf to explicitely have a project leader? I think that different organization models can work here, and I would prefer the team to decide on a organization model that suits them, as long as it works. Just my 2cts, feel free to ignore and think "Gosh, it's good he isn't the DPL anymore :-)" Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf delegation
On 20/10/15 at 15:55 +0200, Daniel Lange wrote: > >2) move the chairs selection process from designation by the DPL to > >election by the DebConf team. Given that the chairs are supposed to > >protect the Debian Project from serious issues with DebConf > >organization, I find it backward that the DebConf team is able to > >self-select the controllers. Of course it's obvious that the DebConf > >team should have a say about possible chairs (to ensure that they are > >fine with working with the chairs), but I think that an election goes to > >far. I wonder if a suitable result could not be achieved with a > >negociation between the team and the DPL about possible chairs for a > >specific edition of DebConf. (The important change here would be that > >chairs would be nominated for a specific edition of DebConf, which makes > >it possible to choose them based on the ability to work with specific > >organizers) > I'm a big fan of fair and free elections (as you probably saw when I asked > people to vote for T-Shirt colors :)). > But that is a personal preference. I'm not sure such negotiations will not > get people even more upset than the fact that I (and others) reserve the > right to talk privately even about DebConf matters and not do everything we > ever do on mailing lists. I think that I have two different issues with that point. One is the one to which you replied, that is, the fact that the current suggestion is to use an election, which always have a feeling of personification and popularity contest that I'm not a big fan of. But my main objection is that I don't think that it should be the DebConf team members' responsibility to select who is going to control/supervise them. If the Debian project thinks there's a need for a group of people in charge of supervising the team organizing its conference, then the Debian project (possibly through the DPL) should be choosing the supervisors, not the team. (Of course, it makes a lot of sense to involve the DebConf team in the discussion about possible chairs, but that's not the same thing) Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Protecting Debian from DebConf issues? (was: Collaboratively drafting the next DebConf) delegation
On 22/10/15 at 07:01 +1300, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Lucas Nussbaum [2015-10-20 19:49 +1300]: > > Given that the chairs are supposed to protect the Debian Project > > from serious issues with DebConf organization, > > This concern seems to be at the root of both delegations so far. > > I don't have my tongue in my cheek here at all, but have we ever > stepped back and answered the question what threats could put the > Debian Project at jeopardy which couldn't have been prevented > through a functioning team even without sledgehammer powers? You've twisted my words a bit here. I see DebConf as a very important event for Debian. Quoting "Words from the DPL" from the DC13 final report: Debian contributors have long understood the central contribution of DebConf to the success of Debian. Each year, Debian geeks from all over the world look forward to that event, and for many of them, including myself, DebConf is simply unmissable. DebConf is so important because it feels like it exists in a suspended reality: a reality where Debian enthusiasts, who during the year fight hard to find free time slots to work on Debian, can finally do so 24x7. From the outside, DebConf could be seen as a hacking event, and the number of IP addresses per attendee could reinforce that feeling. But it is actually primarily a social event. It enables Debian contributors to put faces to names (and nicknames), meet with each other, talk about future ideas and design plans, strengthen the ties within the Debian community, and smooth grudges that arise when communicating only over the Internet. Debian should protect itself from serious issues with DebConf organization, not only because some of those issues could maybe put the Debian project at jeopardy (even if it's a bit hard to imagine), but also because it's extremely important to continue to have successful DebConfs. Of course, a functioning team could avoid most issues, but I think that we want to keep the possibility to have bids led by people who have relatively little DebConf or even Debian experience. By providing a safety net, chairs are a compromise that make it easier, less risky, to have such inexperienced (and more likely to be malfunctioning) bid teams. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Why a new DebConf delegation won't help
On 12/11/15 at 08:47 +1300, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Allison Randal [2015-10-21 09:16 +1300]: > > I'm good with that description from 2011. No idea how we ended up > > where we are today from that point, it was so sane and sensible. > > IIRC: The 2011 delegation stems from efforts to help make DebConf > recognised as an official Debian event, hence integrating it into > the Debian chain-of-commands. You'd have to ask Zack for detailed > background. > > Zack's delegation was succinct and wise. However, even though it > didn't give explicit decision-override or veto powers, it made three > people responsible towards the project, which had much the same > effect as giving them more weight in decisions than others. > > Since then, we've seen a spectrum of problems, from the team unable > to make decision constantly deferring to the chairs and burning them > out, to there being a divide between chairs and some of the team, > bringing focus to the powers attributed by the more explicit > delegation put forth by Lucas. Note that you have the timeline a bit wrong: Zack's text was in effect from 2011 to 08/2014, so that covered the DC13 organization, which I think you are referring to with: > the team unable to make decision constantly deferring to the chairs > and burning them out The updated text from me was a response to those problems, to hilight the overseeing/monitoring/advisor role of chairs rather than the "debconf leader that should decide about everything" role that the debconf team seemed to have used chairs for. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Reviewing the venue contract
Hi Jerome, On 10/01/17 at 10:30 -0500, Jerome Charaoui wrote: > Here is the current (final?) draft: > https://debconf17-owncloud.univers-libre.net/index.php/s/F2v2hf4DsULnC9w A few questions/comments from someone who hasn't been following DC17 orga very closely. So answers to my questions might be somewhere in the archives. ;) In: > Communiquer les coordonnées de ses commanditaires au locateur pour > approbation avantle 26 mai2017. What is "ses commanditaires"? sponsors? (I guess so given what you wrote later) May 26th might prove a bit early to know the final list of sponsors. In: > A prendre et à maintenir en vigueur, pour la durée de l’événement, une > police d’assurance responsabilité civile de plus de cinq millions de > dollars (500$) qui désigne le Collège de Maisonneuve comme co-assuré > ainsi qu’une police d’assurance couvrant les biens meublesdu locateur et > du locataire. Has this been budgeted? About: > 16)Le LOCATAIRE doit se procurer un permis d'alcool de la Régie des > alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec, dès qu'il y a > consommation ou vente d'alcool lors de son événement. Ce permis > doit être affiché dans le local où se situe le bar. Is it planned to sell drinks inside the college during the event? This is generally a good idea, to avoid people spreading to nearby bars during evenings, but instead keeping people together at the venue. Also, what is the plan for the cheese and wine party? About: > 20)Les lieux loués devront être remis dans leur état d'origine à la > suite de l'événement. Does this cover cleaning the venue after the event, or is that done by the College ? if it's not done by the College, are we also in charge of cleaning the venue during the event ? (which is likely to be needed) Thanks! Lucas signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
[Debconf-team] Questions for the Hsinchu bid
Hi, I just read https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf18/Bids/Hsinchu, and have a few questions. Most importantly, how does one pronounce Hsinchu? :-) Venue/Transport: The "Transportation to NCTU" pdf is not clear to me. By "airport", does it mean "Taoyuan International Airport" (TPE) ? It would be useful to state how much time it approximately takes to reach the venue from the airport for all three methods. Venue/Accomodation: According to the picture, dorms are four beds per room. Is that how they would be used (four people per room)? Are there nearby hotels that could be used by some attendees? Are they reachable by walk or public transport? The social side: DebConf is also important as an opportunity for people to meet, chat and drink beers. Is there a (university?) bar open close to the venue where attendees could go during evenings? Weather: What is the expected weather? Are there places that don't have air conditioning? Location of the rooms: Are all the rooms in the same building? (or are they spread across the campus?) (Note that it's fine to me if you add that info to the page and point me to a diff) Thanks! Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Reviewing the rooms list for venue
On 10/02/17 at 11:25 -0500, Jerome Charaoui wrote: > Hi all, > > Next Tuesday Louis-Philippe and I will be meeting the venue manager for > what we hope will be the final round of negotiations before we go ahead > and sign the contract. > > We intend to raise objections and demand clarification for some of the > harsher contract clauses, some of which were highlighted in a previous > thread, and which we also discussed with a local lawyer earlier this week. > > But we will also be reviewing the room list [1], which was also recently > updated to cut back on anything we thought we could do without with the > aim to reduce the rental price. We were able to bring it down by about > 8k CAD. > > If anyone wants to check out that list, ideas and suggestions would be > welcome, especially if you feel something is missing. > > Obviously, I understand it's not straightforward for anyone remote to > get a clear picture, but the planned room functions are labeled and > floor plans are available on ownCloud to help out. Hi, Are the rooms capacities available somewhere ? Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] Reviewing the rooms list for venue
Hi, On 11/02/17 at 14:44 -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > Hmm, yes but only in French. Here's an estimate from what I recall: > > * D-2632A: ~40 > * Salle d’exposition (B-2209): ~10 > * Jardin: ~100 (highly depends on where/how people sit) > * Typical class: ~35-40 > * Vivoir (B-2210): ~200 (depends on how chairs are arranged, maybe a bit > more) > * Sale de socialisation (D-2660): ~15 > * Salle Sylvain-Lelièvre: ~500 > * Foyer: wide open space... > * B 5501 D-E-F: 120 > * Cafétéria: 400 > > That means that our main talk rooms can fit 500, 200 and 120 people. > > For the hacklabs, I think we have plenty of space with the Jardin, the > few classrooms we rent for that, the Sale de socialisation (D-2660) and > the D-2632A. My only worry is with the hacklabs, where we have: * D-2632A: ~40 * Sale de socialisation (D-2660): ~15 * Jardin: ~100 (highly depends on where/how people sit) * probably one of E2205 or E2212 (your plan says "Conférences et espace de travail") ~35-40 Usually you can't really pack hacklabs like you would pack classrooms (in a typical hacklab, people try not to sit too close to each other). How hard would it be to go with the current plan and add a couple of rooms during the early days of debconf if we discover that the hacklab capacity needs were underestimated? If it's going to be a problem, maybe it's better to just add a couple of classrooms, that will always be useful to spread the load and provide more space for impromptu BOFs. Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: [Debconf-team] DC17 budget approval request
Hi, On 13/02/17 at 13:45 -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > *Budgeted expenses*: > >8,000 CADcontent What's that? I did not see anything about a daytrip, is that on purpose? (I haven't followed discussions closely, so maybe there's no daytrip and I haven't noticed ;) ) Lucas ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
