10:51 < moray> Do we really expect to make sponsorship decisions between the end of Thursday 15 April and some time on Saturday 17 April?  seems a short window
10:52 < edrz> first round, i guess, was the idea
10:52 < Clint> broad strokes
10:53 < FBI> debconf-data:  edrz-guest committed revision 1325 to debconf-data: typo fix.
10:53 < FBI> debconf-data: files changed: U   dc10/website/dates.xhtml.en
10:53 < edrz> side stroke?
10:53 < edrz> back?
10:53 < moray> edrz: "first round" normally requires ranking everyone, then giving out a first batch of money, it's normally been 95% of the time taken
10:53 < edrz> yes.
10:54 < edrz> i'm trying to remember what we were thinking in local team meeting ...
10:54 < moray> I guess it's plausible if the sponsorship meeting is fixed as on the Saturday
10:54 < moray> (but normally we recruited the appropriate team of people then let them choose the date/time)
10:56 < Ganneff> ay, and it always was apretty widespread team, DDs all aroudn the world
10:56 < edrz> so, perhaps recruiting/selecting that team should be on today's meeting agenda?
10:57 < Clint> and how was that coordinated?
10:57 < Ganneff> by mail, doodles, irc channel
10:58 < moray> and normally people wanted some time before the meeting for combined or individual 'research' on people asking for money
10:58 < Ganneff> doodle poll for the one big fat meeting where we went rhough all. naturally that had people up at 5am and some stay late and some at noon.
10:58 < Ganneff> and people got a  csv of applicants with all neccessary data
10:58 < moray> quite a lot will be unknown, so it's worth doing some quick searches etc.
10:58 < Ganneff> and prepared
10:58 < moray> rather than just "I've never heard of them"
10:58 < Clint> are you saying it's just a big irc shouting match about who deserves what more than whom?
10:59 < Ganneff> and then we went through. last times using a small script from me in irssi, which pasted the info, then people voting
10:59 < Ganneff> no shouting match
10:59 < Ganneff> a vote
10:59 < Ganneff> as the team is big (10, 12 people)
10:59 < Clint> what do you vote on?
10:59 < Ganneff> the vote gets you a result with which you can rank
10:59 < moray> Clint: I don't remember any very significant arguing, certainly no shouting
10:59 < moray> Clint: the votes from people were combined to make the rankings, rather than it being a vote on a single outcome
11:00 < Ganneff> people with same rank can then be grouped again and voila, you end up with a clear list that you go top-down as long as you have money
11:00 < Clint> so is each rater assigning a rank to each person or what?
11:00 < Ganneff> you vote like -1, -0.5, 0, +0.5, +1 for example.
11:00 < Ganneff> combine that with 12 people voting
11:00 < Clint> i see
11:00 < Ganneff> and you get scores for applicants
11:00 < Clint> this is not the process i had imagined
11:01 < Ganneff> (slightly different version last time, iirc, but i need to look in my mails from them. but thats the basic)
11:01 < Clint> ok
11:01 < moray> Clint: the process needn't be fixed, but this did seem to work quite well and avoid arguments or too small a cabal making the choices
11:01 < Ganneff> and peoples vote should be based on "how much involved in debconf, debian, etc)
11:01 < Ganneff> like, speakers, volunteers, orga gets a slight preference, of course.
11:01 < Clint> so the amount requested is irrelevant to the ranking?
11:02 < Ganneff> not completly, voters take that in account too.
11:02 < moray> Clint: that part could be dealt with better, it's really a separate issue
11:02 < Ganneff> as said, last time had a slight modification, iirc we hadnt the -1 til 1, but larger ranges directly.
11:02 < moray> Clint: we did note when people asked for stupid amounts
11:02 < Ganneff> but yes, it is not the main thing to take in account
11:02 < moray> and queried it with them, or occasionally agreed 'yes, but only up to XXX'
11:02 < Ganneff> if you want i can look in my mails at home, but - not right now. still at work
11:03 < Clint> so the voters get the person's name and request amount and what other information?
11:03 < Ganneff> yep. break in meeting was easy "break" and then we discussed. happened not too often
11:03 < Ganneff> Clint: travel amount, name, mail, dates, person type
11:03 < Clint> ok
11:03 < Clint> and everyone researched beforehand?
11:03 < Ganneff> oh, and tavel data
11:03 < Ganneff> Clint: thats the idea
11:03 < moray> but I see the talk submission deadline has been set some time later thisyear
11:04 < moray> hard to take talk info into account two weeks before it needs to be submitted?
11:04 < Ganneff> makes it hard to fully keep speaker in travel up
11:04 < Ganneff> but might just mean reserving a little amount for latecome speakers
11:04 < edrz> moray: we had a discusion about that, the dependency is somewhat circular
11:04 < Ganneff> not much
11:05 < Ganneff> as you can cancel the talk if money really doesnt work out
11:05 < Ganneff> a talk, even if scheduled and all set, wont show up unless person is reconfirmed. (or somesuch, we handled it like this)
11:05 < edrz> hmm. maybe the circularity was in the discussion of when to set reconfrimation deadlines.
11:06 < Ganneff> (feel free to design a completly new process, maybe its better, but thats how it was in the past :) )
11:08 < moray> if you're trying to improve the existing process, also think about the 'I want this much / I can pay this much questions'
11:08 < moray> in the past we've taken the answers at face value
11:09 < moray> but this penalises people who are honest against ones who try to play the system
11:09 < moray> there have been various arguments before about paying a first batch of people vs. paying a first percentage for a bigger batch, etc.
11:10 < moray> as ways to try to be fairer
11:10 < moray> again, there was the idea of requiring that people pay at least x% unless they gave especially strong reasons
11:11 < edrz> i added this to the agenda for today's meeting.
11:11 < DrDub_> moray: in your opinion, it is common for people to try to game the system...? I would think that should be fairly unusual...
11:11 < moray> DrDub_: I don't think it's intentional 'gaming' as such, maybe my wording was wrong
11:12 < moray> DrDub_: but some people will think "well, I don't want to pay this" so say "can pay: zero" and ask for all the money, as they think they do a lot of Debian work and deserve to be paid for
11:12 < DrDub_> moray: but the issue is they can actually pay more than they say...?
11:12 < moray> while others will think "well, I suppose I *could* pay for it all if I really had to", then we don't give them money
11:12 < DrDub_> moray: I see what you mean
11:12 < moray> which of these cases is the failure will depend on your point of view about how much money DebConf should be spending how
11:13 < Clint> moray: how do you fairly and objectively define need for people?
11:13 < DrDub_> moray: these are issues I wouldn't want to have to think about ;-)
11:13 < moray> but yes, I think people can be actually in the same situation and give different answers, in a way that penalises people who ask for less money
11:14 < DrDub_> moray: but if they believe they shouldn't pay at all and that the project should fund them... are they really in the same situation? their values seem different
11:14 < moray> Clint: it's probably impossible to calibrate and therefore a silly thing to be asking?  but it's hard to be sure what's an improvement
11:15 < Clint> moray: maybe "need" is entirely the wrong factor then
11:15 < moray> Clint: I'm sympathetic to the idea of paying a percentage and requiring people to pay *some* themselves, but obviously then you get back to the 'need' question for any exceptions to that
11:15 < DrDub_> moray, Clint: I'd hope we can try to maximize attendance multiplied by productivity of attendees
11:15 < moray> DrDub_: well, my gut feeling is that people are likely to be more productive if they paid some themselves
11:16 < DrDub_> then the issue of asking less is that you maximize your chances of getting it
11:16 < moray> DrDub_: no, in the past it didn't have a negative effect to ask for more that way
11:16 < DrDub_> moray: I see what you mean, but I don't share that feeling on my guts ;-)
11:16 < Clint> moray: i think there are multiple problems here and potentially conflicting goals
11:16 < moray> DrDub_: amounts were accepted as long as they were 'reasonable', the percentage of cost asked for wasn't a factor in decisions/rankings
11:17 < DrDub_> moray: well, then we can try to add that into the equation and publicize people about it
11:17 < moray> DrDub_: after the ranking was produced, the past practice was just to work down the list until funds were exhausted
11:17 < DrDub_> moray: seems like a classic knapsack problem
11:17 < moray> DrDub_: I did previously advocate a more utilitarian calculation
11:17 < DrDub_> moray: well, the we can improve by running some optimization code
11:18 < DrDub_> moray: I'd support that view
11:19 < Clint> you could try to norm an optimal per-continent amount
11:19 < moray> to me, if we can pay for 10 people for the same price as 1, the 1 shouldn't just be half a point ahead of each of those ten, but much more important somehow
11:19 < moray> if the 1 is going to be paid for first
11:19 < DrDub_> Clint: yeah, I was thinking that without some sort of re-weighting people really far away are thoroughly screwed
11:20 < moray> Clint: right.  from my point of view an ideal calculation would also take into account other known DebConf locations (i.e. past and future)
11:20 < Clint> this is why i wanted to talk about criteria and process long before the decision meeting
11:20 < Clint> but nobody was interested
11:20 < DrDub_> Clint: nobody... where? in the localteam meeting?
11:20 < Clint> on -localteam
11:21 < moray> Clint: so e.g. it makes more sense to me to sponsor lots of local US travel this year for new attendees vs. sponsoring people to come over from Spain
11:21 < DrDub_> Clint: sorry, I haven't been on IRC much. I'm leaving tomorrow for Argentina so I have been crazy with work, etc
11:21 < Clint> -localteam is not on irc
11:21 < Ganneff> travel sponsorship shouldnt be a localteam thing. in fact it should be as far away fromd ebconf orga as possible, ie only driven by, decision put on as many non orga DDs as possible
11:21 < Clint> moray: that does make sense to me as well
11:22 < DrDub_> Clint: you sent an e-mail to -localteam on this subject? I missed it...
11:22 < Clint> yes
11:22 < Clint> Ganneff: for the sake of anticabalism?
11:22 < edrz> Clint: so we can discuss process now.
11:22 < edrz> and have a process laid out before the decision meeting.
11:22 < edrz> the date is still a month a way.
11:22 < moray> Clint: similarly ideally I think we should take into account who was sponsored last year, and not always sponsor the same group unless that's clearly justified
11:22 < edrz> and we can change it if need be.
11:22 < Clint> edrz: well, apparently we're being told how it is done
11:23 < edrz> Clint: we are being informed of how it has been done in the past, yes.
11:23 < Ganneff> Clint: for the sake of getting as many views into it as we have in debian and making sure one cant tell the team "you few dislike me, you unfairly scored me down, as you dont want me in your conf"
11:23 < edrz> but, I don't see anyone dictating anything.
11:23 < moray> edrz: certainly half of what I'm saying is how I think the old process should/could be changed...
11:23 < edrz> right
11:24 < Clint> Ganneff: sounds like it could turn into a popularity contest
11:24 < Ganneff> not if done right
11:24 < Ganneff> there. off a bit, work
11:24 < DrDub_> Clint: oh, I see your e-mail. I didn't realize what you were talking about as I don't share the context of previous DebConfs
11:24 < Clint> i apologize for my ineptitude
11:25 < moray> Clint: the 'popularity contest' is a reason to take into account past sponsorship
11:25 < DrDub_> Clint: ah? no apologies, I do agree it is good we discuss this
11:26 < moray> Clint: I don't think people intentionally have gone that way, but there *will* be some bias towards 'known' people, whether or not actual friends
11:27 < Clint> i'm still not clear on objective goals here either
11:27 < DrDub_> what about writing some different sets of objectives and compare?
11:27 < DrDub_> there're clearly different views...
11:27 < DrDub_> e.g., to enrich DebConf
11:27 < DrDub_> e.g., to accelerate Debian
11:28 < DrDub_> these could as well be very competing objectives
11:28 < edrz> also, perhaps weighted differently for DebCamp vs DebConf
11:29 < DrDub_> and following moray's comments, it is also the issue of people believing sponsorship is a 'prize' for the efforts and contributions
11:30 < moray> well, we've never been very clear on who does 'deserve' it
11:30 < DrDub_> so a another view (which I don't subscribe to) would be to give prizes to top contributors
11:30 < moray> personally I didn't ask for it previous years, as I thought other people were more deserving
11:30 < DrDub_> at the end it boils down to the overall objective of sponsorship
11:30 < moray> not more deserving 
11:31 < moray> I mean, financially needed the money more than I needed the money
11:31 < moray> but in practice the decisions have been made with a much lighter assessment of need than that
11:32 < Clint> especially since prying into people's personal affairs isn't very nice
11:32 < DrDub_> Clint: indeed
11:32 < Hydroxide> we have never asked for documentation of need, and I fear the reaction we'd get if we did ask for it, despite the fact that it's not unreasonable for voluntary need-based sponsorship offers
11:33 < moray> Hydroxide: I don't think it's realistic to ask for documentation of need
11:33 < DrDub_> I don't think we need to go that direction
11:33 < Hydroxide> moray: agreed.
11:33 < moray> Hydroxide: we could, however, be a little clearer about whether we require 'need' or just 'desire' or whatever else
11:33 < Hydroxide> ya
11:33 < DrDub_> but if we can say "we want a plurality of views", then we want to bring one Japanese vs. 20 people from Minesota
11:33 < edrz> Clint: sorry for not responding to your mail last month ... it probably would have been good to get this discussion going w/global team involvement earlier
11:34 < Clint> i figured that anyone who gave a damn would be following -localteam
11:34 < Clint> but apparently we have different ideas about that
11:34 < Hydroxide> Clint: this isn't a particularly local topic
11:34 < Clint> i didn't think that was relevant
11:34  * Hydroxide is a big fan of using -team for more things
11:34 < moray> I think we'd get different responses if, at one extreme, we said we had a very small amount of money that might be available for people in bad financial circumstances (without requiring documentation of this)
11:34 < edrz> Clint: i was mostly not paying attention to anything last month, so, for myself at least, i'm sorry.
11:34 < Hydroxide> Clint: every year there are many very active global team members who are not on the respective -localteam lists.
11:34 < moray> and another if we just imply we have lots of money available for Debian contributors who want to come to DebConf
11:35 < Hydroxide> moray: currently the requested sponsorship so far totals just under $20600
11:35 < DrDub_> moray: I see what you mean
11:35 < Clint> there is a difference in I 'need' this money because if i don't i won't be able to pay my mortgage, and I 'need' this money because if i don't get it i won't have any savings for when i lose my job and need to pay my mortgage
11:35 < Clint> Hydroxide: that seems interesting
11:36 < moray> Clint: I think "I need" "because I don't want to pay it" is fairly common at present
11:37 < moray> among people who are already in the system, at least, probably newcomers wouldn't read it that way
11:37 < Hydroxide> Clint: also in past years the localteam hasn't done nearly as much of the globalteam work and has given sufficient status updates to the global team at meetings for discussion to occur - and the global team meetings were run by the globalteam, where for dc10 most of the energy seems to come from the localteam right now (== people like Ganneff don't plan to come and people like h01ger have been putting much of their energy elsewhere)
11:37 < Clint> moray: and some people don't want to accept food sponsorship if they feel they can afford their own food
11:37 < Clint> whereas i believe the prevailing feeling is that it's not about need
11:38 < moray> Clint: sure.  I took food sponsorship despite not asking for travel
11:38 < Hydroxide> nobody's ever talked about need-based attitudes toward food or lodging sponsorship in debconf
11:38 < Clint> Hydroxide: i'm not sure what your point is there
11:38 < Hydroxide> only for travel
11:38 < Hydroxide> (mixture of need, merit, and available funds)
11:38 < DrDub_> Hydroxide: and diversity
11:39 < moray> Clint: however, were dc10 to be short of money, it would also be fine from my point of view to be less automatic in those areas
11:39 < Hydroxide> DrDub_: that hasn't been explicitly described in the past to attendees as part of the criteria
11:39 < Clint> yes, but how short
11:39 < Clint> these things seem to be completely subjective
11:39 < DrDub_> Hydroxide: but it is one of the issues that moray is bringing up, because 1 person costs the same as 10
11:40 < Hydroxide> moray: yes - I made sure to change the wording from implying guaranteed sponsorship to requested sponsorship, and said in the announcements that we may have to limit those if sponsored attendance significantly exceeds past years
11:40 < Hydroxide> DrDub_: agreed - my point was about how travel sponsorship has been viewed in the past
11:40 < DrDub_> Hydroxide: ah, yes, I see. I don't see why we can't improve a notch this time.
11:40 < Hydroxide> DrDub_: I don't either
11:41 < moray> Clint: it's not subjective at the point where there's no money to pay for it, I agree there may be a grey area after that
11:41 < DrDub_> Hydroxide: but I side with Ganneff that the people deciding should include a larger crowd outside of us
11:41 < Hydroxide> DrDub_: sure, I'm fine with that
11:41 < Hydroxide> DrDub_: in any case, I personally don't plan to be involved in this team :)
11:41 < Hydroxide> even if people would be ok with that
11:41 < Clint> moray: i concede that "completely" was probably hyperbolic
11:42 < DrDub_> Hydroxide: I initially wasn't planning, but last -localteam I started getting more interested
11:43 < Clint> i think if it's going to be "democratic" that there should be better structure
11:43 < moray> Clint: again on the 'need' question, when I decided I didn't 'need' it before I could have equally argued that I 'needed' it so I had more money for a separate holiday I was planning etc., unless you give some guidance about what you expect 'need' doesn't have a very clear meaning
11:43 < Clint> although i don't consider 12 voters to be democratic
11:43  * DrDub_ thinks that "probably" is completely hyperbolic ;-)
11:43 < Clint> moray: i think that is precisely my point
11:44 < moray> Clint: I don't think 'democracy' has been the aim, but avoiding the appearance of bias by the DebConf organisers
11:44 < moray> and obviously trying to get a sensible result
11:44 < moray> but the reason for having the voters be the organising team wasn't democratic as such
11:44 < moray> insert a 'not'
11:44 < Clint> you mean diffusing the bias
11:44 < Clint> this is an entirely bias-based approach
11:45 < moray> Clint: I said "avoiding the appearance of bias"
11:45 < Clint> i know
11:46 < Clint> but that seems like a silly task when there's bias
11:46 < DrDub_> and issue we haven't explored as a project is to encourage people (and to help people) seek local sources of funding to pay for their DebConf trips
11:46 < Clint> does that even happen outside of europe?
11:46 < moray> Clint: avoiding the appearance of bias a practical matter, to avoid wasting huge amounts of time and energy on fighting about the result afterwards
11:46 < DrDub_> I got plenty of sponsored trips when I was in Math Olympiads in South America
11:47 < moray> avoiding actual bias is obviously good, but a separate issue
11:47 < moray> Clint: students might get it from their universities, for example
11:47 < DrDub_> actually, it is common for the gov. to get requests for money for lofty causes
11:48 < Clint> moray: i.. see
11:48  * DrDub_ heads out to lunch
11:48 < moray> Clint: while some of the people who famously work for Debian-using companies certainly get it from them, and perhaps more could
11:49 < Clint> here when an employer sends you to a conference they often expect you to represent them and their agenda
11:49 < moray> (I seem to remember that at DC4 there was some discussion about whether people had got DebConf sponsorship then used the time to work for the-entity-later-known-as-Canonical)
11:49 < Clint> as well as other strings
11:51 < moray> Clint: the priority of any of this sponsorship -- food/accommodation/travel -- is also certainly not an agreed matter
11:51 < moray> for some people it's just nice if we have it, if we have spare money
11:51 < moray> while for others it's an important aspect of Debian/DebConf not to be limited to people who can afford to come, above other areas
11:52 < Clint> moray: what you're saying is that we're just as likely to get consensus on this as any aspect of debian
11:53 < DrDub_> Clint: I'd be glad if we can get consensus among the orga team
11:53 < DrDub_> Clint: that'd suffice in my perspective
11:53 < DrDub_> at the end of the day, we try to maximize the "goodness" of DebConf given the resources we have
11:54 < Clint> DrDub_: that seems somewhat unlikely
11:54 < DrDub_> so if we can have a common vision of what a good DebConf is...
11:54 < DrDub_> people here grabbing me for lunch...
11:54 < DrDub_> :-)
11:56 < moray> Clint: which I think is the reason that past years avoided discussing the high level aspects too much and just let people vote
11:56 < Clint> thereby making it an honest issue of bias and subjectivity
11:57 < moray> right, I'm not saying it gives a better result, but it gave *some* result rather than flamewars
11:58 < Clint> well, if we can't fix the process or don't want to, i can see how that might be appealing
11:58 < moray> Clint: of course most the ideological possibilities haven't been completely carried through by the various sides anyway
11:59 < moray> e.g. my 'needs-only' argument above would *logically* be extended to requiring people who can to pay a registration fee, to be used for those who can't
11:59 < Clint> right, and no nyc residents to get food/lodging sponsorship of any kind
12:02 < moray> (I guess that I wouldn't go to the required fee personally because I separately don't think that bringing people should be a main focus of DebConf organising, and we've found that a fee isn't needed to organise the conference itself)
12:03 < moray> but we've found in practice over the last few years that we reliably got enough money for food/accommodation for everyone who asked early enough, and decided that it wasn't worth the effort to assess those requests
12:03 < moray> perhaps we also have enough money that we don't need to be strictly needs-based for travel, or perhaps we should be more needs-based for accommodation (e.g.), to free more money for travel
12:06 < Clint> one thing at the localteam meeting that there was disagreement on was having a $300 option for people who wanted to pay something but not get paid accommodation and such
12:07 < moray> what was the disagreement?
12:12 < Clint> whether or not we should offer one or just hope that $0 vs. $600 works out in our favor
12:13 < moray> ah, whether it would encourage people to feel they were doing enough by paying $300? / whether their companies would refuse to pay a more expensive option?
12:14 < moray> I can see those arguments
12:15 < Clint> pretty much
12:16 < moray> I have wondered if more active transparency on our costs would make sense
12:16 < moray> i.e. telling people at some point the 'value' of their free sponsored stuff
12:17 < moray> (well, preferably including the fixed costs divided up appropriately, not just the direct per-person costs)
12:19 < Hydroxide> moray: we should indeed do that, especially if any US taxpayers pay the Corporate fee since they can get some partial tax deduction given the excess cost over value provided
12:19 < Clint> just as long as we don't expose anyone to income tax liability
12:20 < Hydroxide> Clint: I can't imagine how anyone would ever get income tax liability from registration fees...
12:20 < moray> Clint: hm, right
12:20 < Hydroxide> I mean, from paying them
12:20 < Hydroxide> in their roles as attendees
12:20 < moray> Hydroxide: no, the question is for general attendees
12:20 < moray> who are getting the stuff free
12:20 < Clint> right, what moray said
12:20 < moray> if we advertise how much the stuff is worth, there's potentially an argument about taxable benefits, or whatever the US equivalent terminology is
12:21 < Hydroxide> moray: ah. we can indeed run that by our lawyers. I doubt it is required to be reported or taxed in this case, but it would be good to check
12:21 < Hydroxide> until we know otherwise we shouldn't worry about it except to check with our lawyers in the near future, though
12:21 < moray> Hydroxide: the exact question is if there's any potential liability if the government notice that we give this free (conference) stuff to people who've worked on Debian
12:22 < Hydroxide> moray: yeah
12:22 < moray> certainly some attendees *do* consider it (including travel money...?) as a reward for their work
12:22 < Hydroxide> yes
12:23 < moray> though I guess the question to a lawyer isn't that, but what we need to do to avoid the possible problem
12:24 < Hydroxide> btw, we DO already have 12 people who have chosen to pay the $650 Professional fee, and 31 people who are attending without asking us to pay for food or accommodation, and another 23 people who are not asking us to pay for one or the other. only 32 attendees are not requesting to stay in our lodging, and only 2 are admitting they don't want to eat with us
12:24 < Hydroxide> so we will be getting a sizable amount of gross income from attendees
12:24 < Hydroxide> 198 registrants total
12:24 < Hydroxide> so far
12:24 < Hydroxide> and no official reminder email(s) sent yet
12:24 < moray> Hydroxide: the 23 are arranging their own stuff, or wanting to pay for ours?
12:24 < Hydroxide> with the deadline just under a month away
12:25 < moray> the 23 / the 31
12:25 < Hydroxide> moray: the 23 are listed as only wanting us to pay for either food or accommodation, but not both. (11 for one and 12 for the other)
12:25 < Hydroxide> and the 31 are not asking us to pay for either
12:25 < Clint> so the answer to moray's question is unknown
12:25 < Hydroxide> Clint: it's unknown but with a bit more db queries it can be answered
12:26 < Hydroxide> I was just reading munin output
12:26 < Hydroxide> http://munin.debconf.org/debconf.org/skinner.debconf.org.html#Pentabarf
12:26 < Hydroxide> we definitely rejiggered the options to be clearer, but that means many people who we might expect to choose Professional would instead choose "Basic, no sponsored food or accommodation" - all that means is "I'll pay for whatever food or accommodation I want." (there are separate options where they include their food and accommodation preferences independent of payment issues)
12:27 < Hydroxide> anyway, my point is that it's not at all clear to me that we're suffering in terms of paying attendees compared to previous years
12:27 < Hydroxide> but, now, time for lunch.
12:27  * Hydroxide &
12:28 < moray> for dc7 we had 283 'arrange own', '168 hostel sponsored' according to munin, though I think it lacks some of the final detail
12:31 < moray> whereas for this year we have 198 total, 156 'regular room' according to munin
12:31 < moray> -- but the dc7 non-accommodated numbers went up a lot later on
12:31 < moray> the main reason to register at this stage is if you want the free stuff
