Re: [Debconf-team] dc13 draft budget, 2012-11-20
On 22/11/12 10:52, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Richard Darst <rkd@zgib.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 08:23:37PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>> Not quite... I would really like to understand your logic for 60
>>> professional and 2 corporate
>>
>> Okay, this is right. I was going to reply but didn't have time.
>>
>> With 42 professional / 2 corporate (= 44 rooms which are
>> "professional-quality"), that gives us 40/110 attendees and 15 kCHF
>> travel sponsorship.
>
> I very much disagree with the assumption that we only have space for ~40
> professional attendees. The least we can say about this is that there is
It is not just a question of space. As Ana demonstrated, only 30-35
people paid the professional rate in previous years:
http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121106.005241.300e527b.en.html
>> seriously. But realize: if people don't register as professional, and
>> we don't make a sponsorship windfall, this will be a tiny tiny
>> debconf. But I am not too worried about that right now.
This is something to worry about: I'm not willing to put in lots and
lots of work to make a tiny tiny event, and I suspect other people not
married to the Le Camp proposal will have similar feelings. People
could put the same amount of work in to another project for much more
impact.
>> Now that I think about it, a bigger question is the splitting of costs
>> of attendance (food, accom) with professional fee. If this is done,
>> more people may pay just food+accom which would reduce this income
>> greatly.
This is a further issue: the only way around that is to insist that
there is nothing in between the professional fee and the 100% sponsored
participant, then the 60 or more professional participants may be
feasible. That approach may also mean less people attending though,
which seems to undermine the whole purpose of organising an event.
Reply to: