On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I've just removed "Media Sponsors - Nobody wants to say anything regarding
> this." from that page as it didnt send the best message to our sponsors ;-)
My bad, sorry and thank you for removing it :)
Velimir
___
Hi,
On Dienstag, 22. Februar 2011, Velimir Iveljic wrote:
> we agreed tonight that we will use these levels:
> http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Sponsors
great!
I've just removed "Media Sponsors - Nobody wants to say anything regarding
this." from that page as it didnt send the best messag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/23/2011 09:30 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - Turn the "sponsor contact" tab from a mailto: link to a real page,
> I've the impression a mail is a pretty scary thing for someone that
> haven't yet decided whether they'd like to sponsor or n
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:13:18PM +, Velimir Iveljic wrote:
> The brochure is "published" for some time now, and can be found here:
> http://debconf11.debconf.org/documentation.xhtml
> the spirit of Debian, it will be ready when it is 100% ready :))
Great! I'll start pointing to it companies
we agreed tonight that we will use these levels:
http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Sponsors
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:05:38PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
>>On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:24:15PM +, Velimir Iveljic wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:05:38PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:24:15PM +, Velimir Iveljic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've made a wiki: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Sponsors
>>
>> Those are the currently proposed levels of sponsorship.
>> But i think we should agre
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:24:15PM +, Velimir Iveljic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've made a wiki: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Sponsors
>
> Those are the currently proposed levels of sponsorship.
> But i think we should agree at the tonight's meeting if they are
> final, and if not, then try
Hi,
I've made a wiki: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf11/Sponsors
Those are the currently proposed levels of sponsorship.
But i think we should agree at the tonight's meeting if they are
final, and if not, then try to figure out what levels to use this
year.
Velimir
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> it was decided in the meeting two meetings ago, that the sponsor levels should
> be discussed and decided by the sponsorsteam. Until now, this discussion has
> not taken place, and thus no decision neither.
>
> I'd suggest to have a least wri
Hi,
On Friday 16 February 2007 04:06, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> OTOH, some of us do think that such a change could lead to
> the lost of sponsors.
While I do see this might be true for some sponsors, I do believe it doesnt
affect the majority of small sponsors and also I t
Hi Safir and everybody else wanting to help DebConf getting more money,
On Thursday 08 February 2007 13:45, Safir Secerovic wrote:
> P.S. I would also like to be involved more with helping sponsorship team.
in the -team-svn there is a file, sponsors-table, where you can find a huge
lists of comp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry if I'm late to the party. :-(
On 02/08/2007 10:45 AM, Safir Secerovic wrote:
> I fully agree with h01ger and others that we need to have levels for
> sponsors, but perhaps something like categories, like marga poined out
> from what she saw at
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:55:26PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (*) Ganneff was and is against it, so the decission was held off for
> debconf8.
> Great. Ganneff is not even part of the sponsorsteam.
debconf7 was delayed getting off the ground, and given there wasn't a
clear consensus in favour
Holger Levsen dijo [Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:41:22AM +0100]:
> > You are right: We currently rate them. However, there might be some
> > logic behind it.
>
> There "might" be logic behind it? I seriously hope this a language issue...
The uncertainty principle at its best ;-) No, I did mean it as f
Hi Christian!
* Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-09 16:02]:
> As a matter of comparison, the Free Software World Conference some of
> us are attending here in Badajoz(ES) is using a gold/silver/bronze level
> system.
And where are mercury, uranium, lead and tungsten in that scheme
> That being said, I would make sure not to overdo the levels. I would go
> with two levels, perhaps three as a maximum; five is way too much, IMO.
As a matter of comparison, the Free Software World Conference some of
us are attending here in Badajoz(ES) is using a gold/silver/bronze level
system
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 05:34:27PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:55:26PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels,
> > as was "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
> >
> > 1. I believe, that we get
[There's no need to CC me, I'm on the list.]
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 02:47:44PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 05:34:27PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:55:26PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go
> On Wed, 07, Feb, 2007 at 10:11:20PM +, Neil McGovern spoke thus..
>> Just to clear things up, as I've been asked on IRC, I'm againt it *for
>> DC7*.
>
> I fully agree with Neil on this. Whether future debconfs use levels is
> a matter for discussion (and personally I'm in favour of it). Int
On Thu, 08, Feb, 2007 at 11:26:45AM +, Mark Hymers spoke thus..
>Introducing
> something like this half way through would make us look amateurish and
> incompetent.
Argh, sorry if that came off a little brusque, Holger... I'm havi
On Wed, 07, Feb, 2007 at 10:11:20PM +, Neil McGovern spoke thus..
> Just to clear things up, as I've been asked on IRC, I'm againt it *for
> DC7*.
I fully agree with Neil on this. Whether future debconfs use levels is
a matter for discussion (and personally I'm in favour of it). Introducing
Hi,
On Thursday 08 February 2007 01:25, you wrote:
> You are right: We currently rate them. However, there might be some
> logic behind it.
There "might" be logic behind it? I seriously hope this a language issue...
> > 4. If we dont have sponsor classes, my (poorly doing) freelancing
> > busine
Hi,
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 18:34, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> The addition of such sponsorship levels could well scare off smaller
> sponsors;
So why does almost everybody else do it?
And being listed on the bottom doesnt scare them away?
regards,
Holger
pgppKw3SIM7BR.pgp
Desc
Hi,
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 18:57, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10923 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Yeah. Point at me, have fun.
I'm sorry, that was not appropriate. (Even though I had the impression that I
had.)
> But realize its not only me,
I did and I do.
regards,
Holger
Hi,
Multiple replies squished together follow.
Holger Levsen dijo [Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:55:26PM +0100]:
> I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as was
> "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
>
> 1. I believe, that we get more money from sponsors, if
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:57:50PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10923 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> > I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as
> > was
> > "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
> > (*) Ganneff was and is against it, so the deci
> The thing is - levels can scare people away. "Oh, we need to pay that
> much to get recognized? No thanks". IMO they dont help much.
Full ACK
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/2007 03:57 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10923 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
>> I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as
>> was
>> "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
>> (*) Ganneff was and i
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:55:26PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as was
> "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
>
> 1. I believe, that we get more money from sponsors, if they have an incentive
> to spend m
On 10923 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as was
> "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
> (*) Ganneff was and is against it, so the decission was held off for
> debconf8.
> Great.
Yeah. Point at me, have fun. Bu
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:55:26PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels,
> as was "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
>
> 1. I believe, that we get more money from sponsors, if they have an
> incentive to spend more money to
Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship
> > levels, as was "decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
>
> FWIW, I think it's a good idea and we should go ahead with it.
AOL!
> I like t
> >I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as
> >was
> >"decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
>
> FWIW, I think it's a good idea and we should go ahead with it.
AOL
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author,
Hi!
On 2/7/07, Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as was
"decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
FWIW, I think it's a good idea and we should go ahead with it.
Suggested levels:
label-scheme1 label-scheme
Hi,
I honestly think it's a big mistake not to go with sponsorship levels, as was
"decided" (*) in the sponsorship team meeting:
1. I believe, that we get more money from sponsors, if they have an incentive
to spend more money to reach higher levels. Currently it doesnt really matter
how much
35 matches
Mail list logo
