Richard Darst r...@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
On Donnerstag, 22. November 2012, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
(Of course, with infinite amounts of cash you can lend a boat, but even
with 120% of the LeCamp budget, I very much doubt one could find a
suitable venue in March.)
that and if we restart the venue search now, we will _also_ get
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 22. November 2012, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
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
absolutely no consensus about what standard of accomodation the
professional fee
On 22/11/12 10:52, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
Richard Darst r...@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
Hi
IMO the most important topic for tonights meeting is the decision about
how to proceed with Le Camp. We promised them to have a decision by the
end of November. So to be fair and keep that promise we have to decide
now. We need some more days to get the budget approved and to have a
board
On 22/11/12 12:04, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
Hi
IMO the most important topic for tonights meeting is the decision about
how to proceed with Le Camp. We promised them to have a decision by the
end of November. So to be fair and keep that promise we have to decide
now. We need some more days
Hi all,
thanks Gaundenz for this concise and clear mail that summarizes my feelings
quite well.
Le jeudi, 22 novembre 2012 12.04:52, Gaudenz Steinlin a écrit :
IMO the most important topic for tonights meeting is the decision about
how to proceed with Le Camp. We promised them to have a
Hi
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
Just in response to Gaudenz's points, here is a summary of the
counter-arguments that are floating about:
- bankruptcy issue: Richard has used words like `small' and `tiny' on
several times to describe the likely size of the conference - so
Hi,
On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 12:04 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
Hi
IMO the most important topic for tonights meeting is the decision about
how to proceed with Le Camp. We promised them to have a decision by the
end of November. So to be fair and keep that promise we have to decide
now. We
Le jeudi, 22 novembre 2012 16.04:26, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
It would seem foolish to sign a contract before we maximise any
funding from the local tourism/economic development budget.
Doing this would lead to eternal postponing. We haven't yet asked canton Vaud
neither Loterie Romande, just
Hi everybody,
Some months ago I was in the bid decision meeting and I voted to have DebConf
in Switzerland. It was not an easy decision, both bids were quite close
and both have problems. In the meeting, there wasn't the possibility of
not choosing any bid, something that now looking back should
On 22/11/12 16:22, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le jeudi, 22 novembre 2012 16.04:26, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
It would seem foolish to sign a contract before we maximise any
funding from the local tourism/economic development budget.
Doing this would lead to eternal postponing. We haven't yet
Hi,
We consider the financial part as the only major issue. The other issues
that we discussed on the mailinglist are in our opinion either not
important enough or are mostly details and need to be refined later.
What will be fixed is the duration and the prices. The other things are
in our
Le jeudi, 22 novembre 2012 16.43:49, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
As long as we are uncommitted, the pressure is on them to offer us an
incentive
Waiting on the hypothetical answer from Canton Neuchâtel (or Canton Vaud) only
leads to open-ended postponing. At one point we will have to make a
I propose a A2 option: We tell LeCamp: we are committed to come in LeCamp, but
now we don't have enough money. We (local team) are pretty sure that we will
have enough money for the two weeks, but *now* we can only book for 7 or 10
days (not to have financial troubles or giving you financial
Didier,
Waiting on the hypothetical answer from Canton Neuchâtel (or Canton Vaud)
only
leads to open-ended postponing. At one point we will have to make a
decision,
without every possible answer in our hands.
I think Daniel is right, that the motivation for any such agency to give
money/more
Cate,
We need to give them the possibility to book it with other clients. We
can't just block 2 weeks and maybe only take one.
But we could tell them that we might be interested in some buildings for
the first week if we have enough money and we'll reserve them later if
they're still available.
Le jeudi, 22 novembre 2012 18.35:07, Philipp Hug a écrit :
I think Daniel is right, that the motivation for any such agency to give
money/more money is a lot higher if their decision to give us money
influences our choice of venue. I hoped you'd have answer until now :(
Let's phrase it
Gaudenz Steinlin dijo [Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:52:35AM +0100]:
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
absolutely no consensus about what standard of accomodation the
professional fee
Giacomo Catenazzi dijo [Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 03:10:31PM +0100]:
I propose a A2 option: We tell LeCamp: we are committed to come in
LeCamp, but now we don't have enough money. We (local team) are
pretty sure that we will have enough money for the two weeks, but
*now* we can only book for 7 or
Hi Ana,
On Donnerstag, 22. November 2012, Ana Guerrero wrote:
I still remember when Tincho (local team then)
said: You can not delay a DebConf until it's ready This is one of the
reason why it is asked to future localteams to get involved ready, to
learn how to live in this chaos ;)
yeah,
Gaudenz Steinlin dijo [Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:04:52PM +0100]:
IMO the most important topic for tonights meeting is the decision about
how to proceed with Le Camp. We promised them to have a decision by the
end of November. So to be fair and keep that promise we have to decide
now. We need
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:22:53PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
yeah, right totally true. And as I see it, this is so far the best prepared
DebConf _ever_: we already have 60K, with 10-40k in the pipeline, and we
are _NINE_ months ahead.
Sadly, sponsorship is not lineal. So far, most of the
(My apologies for missing the meeting, as it was Thanksgiving here in
the states and I was traveling.)
If I am not mistaken hug is going to try and get Le Camp to agree to 1
week, plus some reduction in the DebCamp week commitment (either
length or committed buildings), and is authorized to sign
/debconf-team.2012-08-13-17.55.html
And from the meeting page:
http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Meetings/20121122
Cheers,
OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team
25 matches
Mail list logo
