21:00:14 #startmeeting 21:00:14 Meeting started Mon Jul 5 21:00:14 2010 UTC. The chair is DrDub. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:14 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 21:00:31 hello everybody 21:00:35 * schultmc waves 21:00:36 good evening 21:00:39 cheers 21:00:40 localteam @ local meeting, join in :) 21:00:45 * Hydroxide focuses here :) 21:01:07 hi 21:01:10 here here, shinny objects! 21:01:16 #topic tshirt status 21:01:24 Hydroxide: ...? 21:01:31 where is the overall meeting agenda? 21:01:40 micah: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#Global_Team.2C_Mon_July_5th.2C_21:00_UTC_.2817:00_EDT.29 21:01:40 http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#Global_Team.2C_Mon_July_5th.2C_21:00_UTC_.2817:00_EDT.29 21:01:41 micah: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#Global_Team.2C_Mon_July_5th.2C_21:00_UTC_.2817:00_EDT.29 21:01:44 http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf10/Meetings#Local_Team.2C_Mon_July_5th.2C_20:00_UTC_.2816:00_EDT.29 21:01:47 i wonder if we want to review it and consider adding things before jumping in? 21:01:47 :-) 21:01:52 too many! 21:01:57 so marga has done the numbers today/yesterday 21:02:00 fro the tshirts 21:02:17 micah: I'd rather just go with it and take AOBs 21:02:18 and we will need way less than 600 or 500 21:02:21 * edrz waves 21:02:26 it is more like 430 or so 21:02:37 * Hydroxide is fine with using the number of shirts marga cmae up with 21:02:38 great 21:02:41 now the question is about how many differents shirts we need 21:02:54 Hydroxide: could you explain that? 21:03:06 #info marga thinks we'll need 430 t-shirts 21:03:09 ana: I can try to summarize the discussions so far, yes 21:03:10 ana: you mean a general decision, or you want the penta numbers now? 21:03:11 once we solve that, we pretty much have the numbers ready to send to gaby 21:03:18 Hydroxide: please 21:03:30 #info for budgetary reasons, we're thinking of not giving anyone more than 2 shirts total 21:03:33 moray: we have the numbers 21:03:38 I also would like to hear from Hydroxide about the status of the logos re: vector format 21:03:39 #info that would be attendees, plus at most one role shirt 21:03:50 sounds fair to me 21:03:54 indeed 21:04:10 I'm also not against just having regular and 'staff' shirts if it saves money (but it probably doesn't) 21:04:11 #agreed we will not give more than 2 shirts total 21:04:31 i'd also not be against just having one shirt, if it saves even more money 21:04:39 moray: yes, that is the issue, i guess Hydroxide is writing a long line summarizing that 21:04:40 * dkg too 21:04:44 yea me 2 21:04:45 #info the other thing is do we want to keep the orga/video/volunteer trichotomy or just a staff shirt? 21:04:46 we can identify our 'roles' in other ways 21:04:48 heh, yeah 21:04:49 no, the shirts does not save a lot of money 21:04:50 i dont care about having STAFF 21:04:52 i already have too many t-shirts 21:04:54 ORGA 21:04:55 i can personally go without a shirt. 21:04:56 micah: oh definitely from my POV 21:04:59 i mean 21:05:00 a special shirt 21:05:01 though i admit, it would be cool 21:05:02 i'm going shirtless ;) 21:05:04 #idea we can identify our 'roles' in other ways 21:05:06 micah: but the t-shirts seem a useful way to thank people 21:05:14 oh i have an idea: headbands 21:05:18 or wristbands 21:05:21 micah: more for the 'volunteers' than actual organisers 21:05:21 dkg can take money to keep his shirt on 21:05:21 we would need something like 80 extra shirts and that is 320 USD 21:05:22 dkg: i think that's a CU public safety violation 21:05:33 any specific agreement with sponsors about t-shirts? 21:05:37 #info there's no difference in price for having multiple kinds of shirts, but of course more shirts total == more money 21:05:52 biella: the handbands idea makes me think of cool '80s themed DebConf gear :) 21:05:59 zack: for sponsors they get one shirt (Except sponsors from the 2 higher levels) that get 2 21:06:00 OK, let's move on 21:06:06 but they are from the general poll 21:06:09 DrDub: wait! 21:06:15 we did not discuss the issue... 21:06:16 sure 21:06:17 DrDub: we need to know whether to do one staff shirt or the three role shirts 21:06:18 well it sounds like we can 1) get staff shirts 2) but we can just have one shit per person 21:06:30 zack: bronze and up get their logos on the back of their t-shirts 21:06:32 I was just checking whether you did promise to sponsors to give t-shirts for free to the attendants or anything like that ... 21:06:45 zack: we promised they get their logos on the t-shirts, so yes 21:06:48 we need to know if we want just plain "staff" shirt for orga/volunteer/video and attendee shirt (2 models) 21:06:48 dc10 leg warmers. 21:07:05 or we keep doing that thing from previous year of 2 kinds: orga, volunteer, video 21:07:07 i vote for 2 21:07:14 and limiting to 2 shirts per person 21:07:21 ana if it does not cost extra i say extra but everyone one just gets 1 shift 21:07:22 and yes, my vote is with just 2 shirts 21:07:23 ana: if none of this year's 'organisers' will be upset by the demotion, it sounds simpler 21:07:55 moray: yes, just removing "i worked for organizing debconf" shirt works for me 21:08:04 but if you do to save money, it really does not :) 21:08:10 a) no special shirt 21:08:13 b) 2 colours 21:08:14 People like getting the video team shirts -- it's definitely something that helps get volunteers IMO 21:08:21 c) 4 colours like previous years 21:08:24 I am fine with any of these - can someone say #agreed so we know what we agreed and then I'll order it with gaby later today? 21:08:30 fil: but getting 'staff' ones might make them as happy? 21:08:31 (someone == DrDub as chair, I think) 21:08:34 wait 21:08:42 Hydroxide: nothing was agreed 21:08:47 agreed 21:08:48 but it's not clear this is really saving money, or just taking time to discuss :) 21:08:58 I was ready to move on 21:09:01 but ana stopped me 21:09:07 she wants an answers 21:09:10 killing orga shirts saves 320 USD max 21:09:17 telling her there's no need to answer this now is fine, too 21:09:24 orga/volunteers/Video 21:09:25 but she laid down (a)-(c0 21:09:28 no idea -- I volunteered first time at least partly for the shirt -- now I'll volunteer regardless, having discovered it's not as hard as I'd assumed 21:09:31 ana: well, I think everyone is agreed 'max 2 shirts per person' 21:09:32 * Hydroxide does want to know what to order tonight, but if we can't reach a consensus, I'll just figure it out with her and/or my own opinion and do Something™ 21:09:37 if we're ok with that let's move on 21:09:42 b 21:09:44 moray: ok, max 2 shirts per person 21:09:45 someone could look for agreement on 'max 1' or we could move on 21:09:48 i think we should have staff/volunteer shirts but i think if you get one, you get that one 21:09:54 now, we do 2 colours or 4 colours segregation again :) 21:10:03 ana: delegate that to the t-shirt team? 21:10:12 do we agree on that? 21:10:14 then it is going to be 2 colours 21:10:17 everybody agree on that? 21:10:24 normal attendee shirt for everybody 21:10:33 sure 21:10:36 * Hydroxide is ok with that 21:10:37 can we restate the proposal? 21:10:39 another colour shirt extra for volunteers (columnbia, video, orga) 21:11:02 ana: fine with me as long as the 'extra' colour isn't something weird :) 21:11:05 yes, that's the max-2 option 21:11:09 sure ana, sounds good 21:11:14 #info decision: everyone gets attendee shirt; people who help also get a "staff' shirt 21:11:18 let's move on 21:11:19 wait 21:11:27 #agreed everyone gets attendee shirt; people who help also get a "staff' shirt 21:11:36 yes, but max-2 shirt means we make more than one kind of shirt, the question is how many :) 21:11:51 the shirts coming from anyone we know or just a search for shirtmakers? (I have a friend with a shirt company who might give a good price) 21:11:54 we are talking about volunteers getting 2 shirts 21:11:57 RonG: we know someone 21:12:00 k 21:12:01 ana: delegate to t-shirt team, but less than the number quoted above? 21:12:08 #topic budget update 21:12:14 i'd like to modify the proposal that volunteers get one shirt 21:12:27 instead of two, just the volunteer shirt. I certainly dont need, or want two of them 21:12:37 micah: what do you propose? 21:12:47 he proposes 'max 1 shirt per person' 21:12:57 i will take the one you don't want 21:13:04 though in practice you'd still need extra 'staff' ones to give late volunteers 21:13:07 normal attendee shirt for non-volunteers, another colour shirt extra for volunteers (columnbia, video, orga) 21:13:13 exactly 21:13:14 hi 21:13:25 can we move on to the budget update? 21:13:29 h01ger: hi 21:13:42 * Hydroxide is ok with any of these options but doesn't want this to take too much of the hour 21:13:43 h01ger: have you read backlog? 21:13:44 well, I didn't agree to the previous #agreed 21:13:55 somebody else thinks like micah? 21:14:02 so i dont want to be annoying about process, but I'd like to be part of it :) 21:14:03 we're 13 minutes in to the meeting. and still on the first item. 21:14:13 if nobody else does, i think we all agree with 2 kind of shirts, 2 max per person 21:14:14 I agree with micah, I have no need for two shirts. 21:14:20 DrDub: can you do a #save? 21:14:28 #save 21:14:32 we have people who has been promised a extra shirt, FWIW 21:14:33 (video) 21:14:34 edrz: what does it do? 21:15:21 saves the logs thus far, so late comers can read a summary of sorts. 21:15:24 edrz: I found it on the logs 21:15:25 the t-shirts are cheap enough, and we have enough people who will take surplus ones, so I'm not sure it's worth arguing to 'max 1' when not everyone is happy with it 21:15:38 #topic tshirt status 21:15:44 (I would go with it fine if there seemed consensus) 21:16:00 i was looking at the numbers, if we do not "staff" shirt, we only do 50 shirt less 21:16:05 200USD less 21:16:08 an extra t-shirt is a pretty cheap reward 21:16:17 which *some* people seem to like 21:16:18 I'm fine receiving a staff not attendee t-shirt 21:16:35 if we are trying to be frugal, we shouldn't be trvially saying that saving $200 is not worth it 21:16:44 $200 can be used for something else 21:16:48 i agree 21:16:51 ok, just I'd rather spend the time arguing against spending tens of thousands in the next point :) 21:17:01 and if we were to sell t-shirts we expect to make $1000, tops 21:17:02 simonft: edrz can you speak to the video team concerns about needing extra shirts? 21:17:03 * ana nods at moray 21:17:11 h01ger: ^ 21:17:28 As far as I can tell, video team wiki says that they will get a shirt. 21:17:28 micah: i personally don't care. 21:17:33 * h01ger also thinks you spent to much time on tshirts 21:17:46 indeed 21:17:49 now.... 21:17:56 can i test for agreement for 1 shirt, two colors depending on your role? 21:17:57 next topic? can we stay with the max-2? 21:18:00 but, h01ger might disagree, but I also think we're talking far too long about a small-ish item, at least in terms of the next topic. 21:18:08 and i also think "you'll get a video tsihjrt for helping us" worked very very well at dc8+9. mindbogling well so to say 21:18:11 let me put it some other way 21:18:19 is anybody here that would oppose max-1/ 21:18:20 ...? 21:18:27 otherwise we can agree on it and move on 21:18:32 debconf local team wikis says "As always, we need lots of volunteers (enter yourself and participate and get a t-shirt :) " 21:18:41 *video team wiki 21:18:44 DrDub: I think h01ger on behalf of video-team is doing that? 21:18:45 yes, you get one t-shirt 21:18:54 simonft: the *only* t-shirt 21:18:56 limiting numbers of shirts per person makes sense to me too 21:19:00 you already get one t-shirt as normal attendee :) 21:19:01 (the marvels of English language) 21:19:10 which means we can't give attendees these bribery shirts as was mentioned last time 21:19:28 * Hydroxide reiterates that he's fine with any of these and still thinks we should have moved on earlier... wanting a bit of feedback doesn't mean a whole meeting's worth 21:19:37 18 minutes on t-shirts. 21:19:38 i am happy with only t-shirt, but then it is only one model 21:19:46 can someone please order the agenda topics by relevance so that we can go through the agenda top down but in a meaningful way? 21:20:03 or you won't know who wants "staff" shirt and who wants "normal" shirt 21:20:04 ana: 1 shirt, two models 21:20:16 OK, I'm agreeing on the 1 shirt per person proposal in 1 21:20:19 micah: you won't know who wants "staff" shirt and who wants "normal" shirt 21:20:20 2 21:20:25 that is a nightmare 21:20:25 2 shirts, 2 models 21:20:31 ana: as said above, you will need extra ones anyway 21:20:36 ana: its not about want, its about who is actually doing :) 21:20:41 ana: you don't know all volunteers until the end of debconf 21:20:50 yes, so if you made all the same... 21:21:00 #agreed one t-shirt per attendee, staff for staff members, attendee for non-staff 21:21:02 ok, 1 shirt per person and we'll see the details later, agreed? :) 21:21:15 sounds good! 21:21:18 who is going to ask who wants what kind ? 21:21:18 #topic budget update 21:21:20 i didn't agree to that 21:21:20 ana: thanks :) 21:21:29 * zack takes cover 21:21:34 ana: we'll figure that out post-meeting 21:21:37 ok 21:21:44 then change that agreed 21:21:53 * fil thinks the 1-shirt thing is a mistake BTW 21:21:54 * h01ger reminds that the catch to get people work was probably an extra shirt, but later... 21:22:04 topic 'Corporate sponsors' 21:22:15 #info v-t got more people with t-shirt offers 21:22:24 yes, it is a mistake, it is a cheap bribe 21:22:26 yes, I don't think it was agreed, that's actually the problem with spending 20 minutes, people are more upset when you ignore the discussion :) 21:22:35 #help someone needs to figure out who gets which shirt 21:22:52 people, we got zack attending today to discuss budget issues 21:23:05 ana, exactly. its cheap, it works. we were understaffed every single debconf. we had backlog... 21:23:05 if all we plan to talk is t-shirt, this is going to be a wasted meeting 21:23:15 #info previous #agreed is not agreed 21:23:20 so, who has something new to say about c. sponsors? 21:23:25 if that's the case, then you can get t-shirts for the v-t team as a separate issue 21:23:26 how about move t-shirt discussion to end of meeting 21:23:27 let's do simple vote 21:23:32 a) 1 shirt b) 2 shirts 21:23:35 #idea schedule a t-shirt meeting? 21:23:36 * h01ger sigh 21:23:43 please do 21:23:46 and I won't attend ;-) 21:23:46 anyone chairing this meeting? 21:23:53 h01ger: I'm chairing 21:23:54 DrDub: is chair 21:24:01 * Hydroxide refuses to type any more lines beyond this one regarding the t-shirts. Let's Move On®. 21:24:01 h01ger: nobody cares 21:24:02 the colours stuff is delegated to the tshirts team (that is marga, Hydroxide and me in case you are curious) 21:24:17 OK, LET'S MOVE ON 21:24:17 DrDub, sigh 21:24:23 budget update 21:24:28 ana resend with #info prepended 21:24:40 #agreed t-shirts will be discussed post-meeting 21:24:45 good 21:24:51 budget? 21:24:59 so who has an budget number? /me has to admit i havent look at budget.ods in a long time 21:25:04 we are in red 21:25:18 OK, from the corporate sponsorship, I don't think there's anything new to report, we lost one 'promised' and we're still chasing a silver sponsor for invoicing 21:25:34 ana: mind sharing the actual number? 21:25:37 can someone give planned spending / raised from sponsors / surplus etc. we already have access to? 21:25:46 it says +500USD but there is a bug counting as people paying full debcamp when they only pay for nights 21:25:53 budget.ods says -9k with 70% queue B sponsoring 21:26:05 #info budget.ods is buggy 21:26:07 so we are something like -1500/2500 USD 21:26:16 ana: out of how much? see above 21:26:38 ana: does that take into account the ~4k EUR I have at home? 21:26:40 ana: and that is without funding Queue B and with no money from Debian, correct 21:26:42 where it says +500, it should be something like (-2500,-1500) USD 21:26:51 Hydroxide: yes 21:26:52 DrDub: exaclty 21:26:58 could you all open the file? :) 21:27:15 ask what you do not understand 21:27:36 #info svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/debconf-data/dc10/budget.ods 21:27:51 so, I think you all got my mail of this afternoon 21:27:58 are there any (real potential) sponsors missing or is this all plus we can get in the budget? 21:28:00 http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/debconf-data/dc10/budget.ods 21:28:25 should that be publicly visible? 21:28:30 yes 21:28:31 why not? 21:28:34 dkg: yes. it has no specific details 21:28:35 ok, just checking. 21:28:54 ana: can you say what cell you are speaking about? 21:29:09 that cell that says: 74933 21:29:14 ana: according to sponsors-commited there are still about $30k to receive 21:29:21 F18 21:29:26 DrDub: that money is there too 21:29:34 yes, that's in the budget.ods 21:29:38 Sponsorship Pledged 82733 21:29:59 basically there is a bug in http://rkd.zgib.net/http/debconf/only-reconfirmed/budget-report.txt which means that the expected attendee fees in budget.ods is a bit too high 21:30:09 if we are waiting for more money that is almost sure that should be in "sponsorship likely", is it the case? 21:30:18 it is still possible for that number to increase but i wouldn't call it likely 21:30:39 it is going to decrease, we are losing professional attendee 21:30:48 that gave us a small surplus of 30-40USD 21:30:49 so pretend we are a little bit wors off than the budget says, 1k maybe 21:30:50 ana: this is money we still don't have in hand but it is not extra to what it is there 21:30:55 * h01ger is confused by rkd.zgib.net...budget.txt and budget.ods 21:31:29 h01ger: the one on rkd.zgib.net is automatically processing penta data figuring out fees, those numbers are moved to budget.ods with all the other expenses 21:31:42 can someone actually give the current summary numbers for the meeting log? 21:31:43 you can ignore everything except budget.ods 21:32:00 just use what budget.ods says and pretend it's a bit worse than that 21:32:08 i.e. money raised-or-definitely-expected / surplus etc. we have access to / projected costs 21:32:15 MrBeige: can you follow on moray's request? 21:32:18 total attendee costs: $184827, total attendee income $74933 (incorrect) 21:32:25 #info total attendee costs: $184827, total attendee income $74933 (incorrect) 21:32:39 well, I meant the overall ones 21:32:42 that info will be different tomorrow night 21:32:48 so no much point..:) 21:32:59 hmm 21:33:00 so budget, we are currently -2000 USD 21:33:07 question: Are we waiting more money from sponsors? 21:33:11 people were talking about +-1k, but that doesn't mean much without the context of the overall numbers 21:33:20 ana: not really 21:33:21 #info we are right now spending $185k on food/accom, expect $74k in attendee fees, have $164k other fundraising/surplus 21:33:35 so we are in red numbers and we do not expect more money 21:33:36 does our budget include things like cleaning (which we are wrangling with) and security? MrBeige ? 21:33:39 where do we cut? 21:33:43 MrBeige: I specifically wanted the fundraising and surplus split :) 21:33:46 #info Our current projections put us just about dead even 21:33:49 biella_: yes, but estimate 21:33:49 cleaning 7k, security 10.5k 21:33:54 MrBeige: as one is DC10 income, one is already 'borrowing' from another pot 21:34:05 it could be less in some points but we might get surprised in other points 21:34:10 ok thanks ana and micah is pointing me to the url, sorry about that 21:34:10 #info $82k fundraising, $75k surplus, 6k other sources (debconf newbies) 21:34:15 budget=-2k - does that include the 20k from debian? 21:34:20 what 20k from debian 21:34:26 h01ger: nope 21:34:39 biella_: it includes my best guesses but cleaning could go up, security will be about like it says 21:34:42 AIUI about 70k is 'surplus' etc., rather than actual fundraising? 21:34:43 but thats without quue b? 21:34:46 we do not have any 20k from debian right now, so not count on that 21:34:49 if so, can someone #info the right number 21:34:53 h01ger: correct 21:35:06 well, to be precise you can have some debian money, but before counting on that please try to cut 21:35:07 b23, b24, b25 address security and cleaning. 21:35:08 ic, thx 21:35:09 any news from Queue A? nobody canceled? 21:35:22 DrDub: peopel canceled and numbers were updated 21:35:22 a couple people canceled 21:35:30 DrDub: queue a/b numbers have been updated as people canceled 21:35:34 #info the above figure is without Queue B and without extra Debian funds 21:35:35 #info Our current money sources: 74k attendee fees, 75k surplus, $82k fundraising this year, $6k debconf newbies 21:35:38 i do not foresee more peopel canceling, i think most of them have their tickets already 21:35:41 whats about the "add 2.5k to your sponsorship" proposal to upgrade to gold, to be on the streams? 21:35:44 moray: the $75k is surplus from dc9 like MrBeige said in an #info at :34 21:35:45 should we discuss that? 21:35:48 ana: great 21:35:52 ok, so where do we cut? 21:35:53 moray: it has been correctly #info'ed 21:36:00 in "fixed costs" 21:36:10 you do not need to worry about small amounts, these numbers are not very percise anyway 21:36:16 you can remove 500USD of shirts, that is not enought 21:36:32 what about removing "formal dinner"? 21:36:33 do you know what i mean with the above proposal? 21:36:34 h01ger: that might work only with one of our current golds 21:36:37 i was going to suggest that ana 21:36:41 removing the formal dinner 21:36:46 h01ger: but it might be worth a try 21:36:56 I was wondering: how long in advance do you need to "prepare" the formal dinner? 21:36:57 we can, if we have food in john jay, and have speeches and the like 21:36:58 we should also remove daytrip, we were probably not going to sponsor it based no latest discussions 21:36:59 DrDub, well, we could ask bdale what he thinks 21:37:02 can it be cut and then added back if needed? 21:37:09 formal dinner and day trip would remove nearly 9k 21:37:11 MrBeige: that is my next question :) 21:37:13 zack, the formal dinner? 21:37:16 biella_: yep 21:37:19 i dont think we should remove both 21:37:20 * h01ger thinks formal dinner in john jay is totally fine if we dont find a new sponsor for that 21:37:23 last year daytrip was sponsored, but previous years it was paid by attendees 21:37:30 ahh i did not know that ana 21:37:33 I think the daytrip is good for the community, more than the formal dinner 21:37:38 me too zack 21:37:41 just make it formal by zack giving a speech :) 21:37:43 problem with this year is: some money was already spent on it 21:37:52 zack: it depends on what the daytrip is about 21:37:53 * Hydroxide typing an #info about daytrip 21:37:56 i did think dc7 was lacking by not having the formal dinner 21:37:57 and we can still have you talk zack :-)) just at the informal dinner, which we can call it as such 21:38:06 * zack nods at ana for daytrip payment (as a worst case scenario, we did it that way in argentina IIRC) 21:38:11 my strategy there is just ignore parts like that and let the masses wast their time on that 21:38:14 w 21:38:17 h01ger: i don't think we can get john jay exclusive to us 21:38:18 w 21:38:25 h01ger: I can do a formal burp if you want (SCNR) 21:38:40 Clint, it will be used for other things? John Jay? 21:38:42 zack, \o/ 21:38:49 biella_: other events at the same time, yes 21:38:50 biella_: yes, anyone can walk off the quad and go eat there 21:39:00 biella_: apparently we might be e.g. 1/3 of the people eating there 21:39:00 zack, awesome! please do! your offer has been logged :-p 21:39:01 at most 21:39:05 so we can view it as an outreach event :-) 21:39:07 so we cut formal dinner (unless last minute rich sponsor appears), agreed? 21:39:26 we currently have no solid plan for the formal dinner, so that would remove a logistical issue 21:39:28 * h01ger agrees with ana and suggests people to ask around for sponsor 21:39:29 and replace it with wine & cheese party 21:39:34 #info daytrip has US$4.50 round-trip travel costs; we were planning to ask people to pay it if they can, but also we would pay for that if they can't. this is independent of the baseball costs 21:39:37 i am ok with it ana though i still think we can do an "informal dinner" and have zack still speak 21:39:38 Clint: sure, a speech there would work better 21:39:39 #info (that's per person) 21:39:52 biella_: yes, informal never-formal dinner :D 21:39:52 or speech during the wine and cheese 21:39:55 OK, can we agree on Ana's proposal about formal dinner? 21:40:02 yes 21:40:05 so the proposal is: cut the formal dinner, maybe have an 'informal dinner' 21:40:08 * h01ger thought "cool" on c+w party at first, but is not entirely sure that works out the same. 21:40:09 also we really could not find a good venue as micah said 21:40:10 #info for the baseball, we were thinking of charging a bit above our group rate for the tickets so as to subsidize people who can't afford it but want to attend the group activity without costing DebConf much 21:40:19 DrDub: seems no one's objecting 21:40:27 #info (still not above retail ticket price) 21:40:30 #agreed we cut formal dinner (unless last minute rich sponsor appears) 21:40:37 h01ger, good point: let's talk later about when to have zack talk 21:40:40 biella_: stop it :) 21:40:44 * Hydroxide OK with the #agreed about cutting formal dinner 21:40:47 my talk is already in penta ... 21:41:00 I love Hydroxide idea 21:41:01 debconf-data: 3 ana committed revision 1488 to debconf-data: remove formal dinner 21:41:01 debconf-data: subtract 2k from attendee fees 21:41:02 zack, i'll add your burp 21:41:03 debconf-data: files changed: U dc10/budget.ods 21:41:03 ok, more realistic budget.ods now... 21:41:05 update! 21:41:12 i can't wait for you talk, no pressure or anything zack 21:41:12 phew 21:41:13 #info remaining 50% of baseball payment is due ~july 15 21:41:28 we seem to be on the subject of cutting the budget now, do we want to talk more about cutting other things now? 21:41:29 now it says 1400 in positive, still no good 21:41:34 #info ($1000 - but see above set of #infos about how it won't cost much for us in the end) 21:41:44 micah: I think so, do you have other areas to raise? 21:41:48 what else do you think we can cut? daytrip? 3rd talk room? 21:41:56 * ana waits for somebody else propose something 21:41:57 I'm still worried we'll get increased costs in some areas 21:42:00 as is *normal* 21:42:07 moray: yes, we have to cut more 21:42:14 * h01ger was hoping / naivly thinking this meeting would last an hour.. 21:42:17 ana: with zero in tentatives, I get $1447.9 21:42:40 1 min 21:42:49 i moved the wrong row!! 21:42:50 proposal: we do not pay for subway fares for the day trip. This would save us around $2k 21:43:03 but we do pay for the baseball right micah ? 21:43:11 micah: I thought under Hydroxide's proposal we don't pay for anything daytrip related 21:43:13 micah, biella_: neither of those is what I'm proposing 21:43:16 I think in general a budget problem of debconf is to paying "by default" for everyone 21:43:19 i don't think the 3rd talk room costs/saves anything ... 21:43:21 micah: I suggest we just pay for people who really absolutely convincingly need it, as was some psat policy 21:43:28 I mean, I wouldn't mind paying the ticket "by default" 21:43:35 i like that proposal moray 21:43:35 *most* years people paid themselves for the daytrip by default 21:43:42 let's just make it possible for people to say they need their ticket to be payed 21:43:43 moray, micah, zack, biella_: please reread my set of #infos - I'm proposing something close to you 21:43:48 biella_: but that is Hydroxide's proposal, too 21:44:02 debconf-data: 3 ana committed revision 1489 to debconf-data: proper row 21:44:02 debconf-data: set shirts number to 450 21:44:03 debconf-data: files changed: U dc10/budget.ods 21:44:04 ok, fixed now, also update tshirt number to a more real number 21:44:14 * h01ger agrees on not paying subway for day trip 21:44:15 actually, not paying for subway fare, its about $1k savings 21:44:15 Hydroxide's proposal is to overcharge a 'package' of ticket + subway fare 21:44:20 now we are 5147.92 positive 21:44:21 Hydroxide: your #info may be close or not, depending on the one with which it's implemented :) 21:44:26 tone 21:44:27 and used that money to pay for people who requested 21:44:51 could we get a cheaper sponsored daytrip? 21:44:52 ana: what did you do? 21:45:03 the point currently being made is to shift the default presumption, unlike e.g. our attendee accommodation payment which is very much seen as optional 21:45:12 * Hydroxide will re-summarize his proposal 21:45:20 ana: the daytrip has been agreed long time ago and it is in line with what local-team wants do share with DebConf attendees. 21:45:21 #info we are expecting 200-250 people to go on daytrip 21:45:24 DrDub: update the spreadsheet 21:45:39 DrDub: that seemed a good idea by the time 21:45:44 ana: what did you change please? 21:45:45 but that does not look like a good idea now 21:45:47 #info PROPOSAL: subway fares: attendees pay unless they can't afford it in which case we pay. baseball: people pay above group rate but below retail rate unless they can't afford it, in which case they're subsidized by people who pay 21:45:52 I hope that clarifies. 21:46:02 ana: this is very cheap if you don't go to the cyclones and just spend it on the beach 21:46:08 do you really expect 200-250 people going to the daytrip=baseball game? 21:46:09 it's cheaper than seeing avatar 21:46:16 ana: the daytrip is to Coney Island, not only to the cyclones 21:46:26 ana, exactly Coney Island is not to be missed 21:46:29 ok, that part is cheap, but about the baseball stuff? 21:46:32 I don't think the daytrip focus is really on topic 21:46:40 thanks moray 21:46:43 just how we arrange payment 21:46:48 exactly 21:46:58 well, let's put Hydroxide proposal to vote 21:47:03 does anybody objects it? 21:47:04 moray: if we reserve more tickets (and pay) that are "sold" we lose money 21:47:17 i think the subsidy is a bad idea 21:47:23 great 21:47:28 Clint: what do you propose instead? 21:47:47 "just pay your part" i think and probably agree 21:47:57 we can ask for dc10 donations still. and should. 21:47:58 ana: I get your updated budget but I don't know what I'm looking at, so I don't see the point of your update 21:47:59 charge people the rate we're getting or pay for them 21:48:03 no need to mix those up 21:48:04 no markup 21:48:13 DrDub: moved formal dinner down, adjusted shirts number 21:48:26 ana: (that part is kind of on topic, but not pointing out that team sports are bad/boring/etc. :) 21:48:27 ana: and we now get a $5k surplus!? 21:48:35 it sounds like we agree to spend no debconf money on day trip, can we let the daytrip planners figure out how to do that themselves ? 21:48:43 DrDub: yes, formal dinner was 6k 21:48:48 (recoup as much costs as possible) 21:48:48 neato! 21:48:52 * h01ger nods MrBeige 21:49:00 everybody agrees with MrBeige? 21:49:08 h01ger: I agree with the idea of donations in any case. I was just trying to alleviate concerns of people who want to pay nearly-nonzero DebConf costs toward baseball 21:49:11 MrBeige: ack, and that have been does in the past too, w/o much disruption AFAIR 21:49:27 s/does/done/ (brrr) 21:49:28 zack: indeed 21:49:29 what is the "other permits" item about? 21:49:31 * Hydroxide notes that his proposal doesn't have us spend $0 on daytrip 21:49:32 we can offer Hydroxide's plan as a decision to attendees 21:49:33 so what you're saying is that we sell the baseball tickets in advnace? 21:49:52 can we agree on MrBeige's proposal? 21:49:53 * Hydroxide also points out that we can probably re-sell unneeded tickets 21:50:05 i agree with moray 21:50:06 eer 21:50:07 * DrDub will be scalping tickets at Coney Island! 21:50:09 i agree with MrBeige 21:50:10 just mail debconf-announce "who want to attend the baseball need to tell it before DEADLINE" (and to pay in advance) 21:50:12 tshirts tickets timebombs :) whats next? 21:50:15 so daytrip out of the budget? 21:50:18 * zack agrees to 21:50:23 what 21:50:26 is the proposal on the table 21:50:27 who agrees to coordinate daytrip? 21:50:30 why don't we use the money we're saving on the formal dinner to pay for the daytrip 21:50:33 it's not at all clear what we're proposing 21:50:40 I am with Clint 21:50:41 hydroxide made a proposal 21:50:41 #agreed we will spend no debconf money on day trip, can we let the daytrip planners figure out how to do that themselves 21:50:43 23:48 ana: and we now get a $5k surplus!? 21:50:44 23:48 it sounds like we agree to spend no debconf money on day trip, can we let the daytrip planners figure out how to do that themselves ? 21:50:47 THAT IS NOT AGREED 21:50:51 uh 21:50:54 #info it's not at all clear that we agreed that 21:50:55 agh 21:51:00 please stop with the trigger happy #agreed :) 21:51:01 Clint, so what is the issue 21:51:06 micah, ^ 21:51:17 micah: first time chairing, be nice to the chair ;-) 21:51:29 pretty please :) 21:51:34 why are we having a day trip at all? 21:51:45 tradition? 21:51:48 Clint: because some people in Brazil thought it would be cute 21:51:49 it is a good community event Clint 21:51:50 Clint, to have a day long social event afk 21:51:51 pain and suffering? 21:51:52 aha 21:51:54 a good community event 21:51:59 Clint: and got attendees to pay for it if they wanted to go 21:52:06 Clint: because it strengthen a community of geeks to have some non-geek event where they can talk without IRC mediation 21:52:09 its volutary. you can stay and fix rc bugs 21:52:12 and in the case of ConeyIsland, itis NOT only baseball, it is a FULL ON day at the beach! and wacky 21:52:17 if the goal is to have a community event 21:52:18 and fun! 21:52:18 Clint: then like other DebConf things it morphed into a budget-eating giant :) 21:52:19 (or $do whatever) 21:52:34 then asking people to pay will make it less likely to have the whole community 21:52:43 which would be a shame 21:52:44 #topic daytrip 21:52:48 i am afraid too that folks might not go 21:52:55 biella_: that's happened every year 21:53:00 biella_: *even when it was free* 21:53:01 if you guys just want to talk about daytrip, go ahead... 21:53:06 about 50-100 people stay every year 21:53:07 but this is no longer budget-y 21:53:11 it's not clear that the years it was free had better attendance 21:53:27 moray: full ack 21:53:45 i'm sure there are lots of things that aren't clear 21:53:48 * h01ger suggest NOT to talk about daytrip. clint objects, but could (and still can) have long objected, but we need to finish this meeting sometime before 4 UTC 21:53:50 some people will not go no matter what, and vice versa -- it's not a very elastic market in my experience 21:53:57 ok thanks for clarifying moray 21:54:07 Clint, why didnt you bring this up 3 months ago? 21:54:12 h01ger: bring what up? 21:54:19 the day trip has been seemingly unanimous until a few days ago 21:54:32 Clint, why daytrip and THAT IS NOT AGREED 21:54:41 what 21:54:43 if we are cutting out the dinner, which is one of our community-building events, it seems slightly bad to cut out the only remaining community building event 21:54:48 is clint the only one who does not want a daytrip? (we ca talk abnout if it is sponsored or not later) 21:54:49 we did not agree to cut all funding for the day trip 21:54:52 and now we decided a way not to spend money on it, so can we PLEASE move on? 21:54:57 * DrDub would like to remind people that there are 6' more minutes left for this meeting 21:54:58 I WANT A FULLY-SPONSORED DAY TRIP 21:54:59 ah 21:55:06 clint did not say he did not want the daytrip 21:55:09 Clint, why? 21:55:09 micah, makes a great point 21:55:12 ok, so for clint it is all or nothing 21:55:13 A#TRkapli32hewfnSAER$!@#R$%@!5 21:55:26 * h01ger scratches head 21:55:28 * Hydroxide suggests we adjuourn in 5 minutes and then go hit our heads against the nearest wall about bad meeting dynamics 21:55:33 :) 21:55:50 * Hydroxide further suggests we set the next meeting time now 21:55:54 it is all good, we just need to get a clear picture of where everybody stands with respect to issues 21:56:01 a) spend no debconf money on day trip b) spend 1k debconf money on it c) 2k, and let daytrip planners figure out how to make that work 21:56:02 I wasn't aware Clint wanted a fully-sponsored day trip 21:56:11 or some amount 21:56:12 * ana goes for a) 21:56:12 clint did not agree with the proposal that hydroxide made of artificially inflating the ticket prices to subsidize other people 21:56:21 given we are cutting out the formal dinner, i say we keep the day trip sponsored and/or at least mostly paid for 21:56:28 Clint did also not agree with the proposal to cut all day trip funding 21:56:34 #propasal Someone check with baseball people and see if a partial or even full refund is possible. 21:56:45 keep daytrip to coney island, people pay their metro and who wants baseball pay for it 21:56:46 biella_, i dont see why people cannot/should not pay 21:56:50 bgupta: certainly we would get a refund if it rains 21:56:57 ana: is that a proposal? 21:57:02 micah: yes 21:57:05 are people ditching my proposal option? 21:57:10 Clint, why do you want/need/suggest funding? 21:57:11 and yes, 150 people seems too much to me 21:57:15 ana: IMHO it's a very reasonable proposal 21:57:18 I see a lot of unresolved proposals on the table 21:57:19 80-100 seems more likely 21:57:20 if we can use that money to pay someones flight 21:57:21 well usually there is a paid for formal dinner h01ger which we are cutting so given that community event is gone, sponsoring, at least partially, the day trip might be a good idea 21:57:24 h01ger: for the community-building dkg mentioned 21:57:27 #info we arranged a group rate for baseball - if we cancel the group the costs for individuals will be more 21:57:42 also, daytrip is community building because people can talk, the baseball game a bit less (and I'm not sure everyone will want to attend, whereas I surely will) 21:57:47 biella_, Clint: people will still pay 10 or 20 usd for having fun 21:57:53 * marga curses. Sorry for being late, I overslept my nap. 21:57:58 zack: people can easily talk quite a bunch at the game 21:58:03 * h01ger waves at marga 21:58:08 Hydroxide: but they are anyhow in rows, AFAIR 21:58:09 * DrDub will be happy to continue chairing when you guys are done 21:58:12 h01ger: some people were complaining about paying $7.25 to get from the airport 21:58:16 zack, yea baseball is great for talking as the game is so boring! :) 21:58:17 DrDub, thats not chairing :( 21:58:19 zack: not much actually happens at a baseball game -- talking and drinking beer happen a lot. 21:58:22 zack: yes, that's true. it's still a very community-y activity. 21:58:29 h01ger: what do you suggest? 21:58:46 zack: also, we did our estimation of seats still taking into account that not everyone would go on the daytrip AND that not all daytrip attendees would watch baseball 21:58:54 that's true 21:58:57 DrDub: #save please 21:58:58 Clint: you are the minority with respect to a fully funded daytrip 21:59:00 DrDub, chairing? making people get to the point. 21:59:01 #save 21:59:12 what is the number of seats reserved? 21:59:13 150? 21:59:14 DrDub: okay 21:59:15 200 21:59:15 i didnt say its easy :) 21:59:16 I also think it should be fully funded 21:59:19 wow, 200 is too high 21:59:20 i just wasn't asked 21:59:23 micah and i are in the minority 21:59:28 h01ger: K, I'll stay and fight it ou ;-) 21:59:30 we are 325 people, and 1/3 is from USA 21:59:35 i think it should be either partial or fully but at least partial funded 21:59:37 DrDub, \o/ 21:59:38 can we see where people are at with all the different proposals on the table? 21:59:39 i am sure they already knwo about baseball 21:59:44 OK 21:59:51 ok, my proposal: 21:59:53 ana: don't assume :) 21:59:57 PEOPLE, LISTEN, PUT YOUR PROPOSAL UP FOR DECISION 21:59:58 keep daytrip to coney island, people pay their metro and who wants baseball pay for it 22:00:05 we have talked, we have heard 22:00:08 now let's try to decide 22:00:12 (a) fully sponsored 22:00:19 (b) sponsored for people who request it 22:00:31 biella_: I would be for funding it in principle, but we seem to have raised $75k less money than we're trying to spend 22:00:32 (c) not sponsored 22:00:37 (c) 22:00:44 b, a, c 22:00:47 * zack doesn't think he should vote 22:00:48 b, a, c 22:00:50 a,b,c 22:00:51 b,a,c 22:00:53 xyz 22:00:54 no, please one 22:00:55 * fil agrees with a cross-subsidy as per Hydroxide -- so b) probably 22:00:57 b,c,a 22:00:57 a,b,c 22:01:00 we are not going to run devotee now 22:01:01 c,a 22:01:03 a,b,c 22:01:08 b,c,a 22:01:17 b,c,a 22:01:19 DrDub: do you have a devotee daemon handy? 22:01:28 i actually would have liked to see a partial sponsorship category 22:01:29 ana: sorry, I don't know what's that 22:01:31 * h01ger cant believe his eyes 22:01:32 b(where really needed/justified),c,a, given budget situation 22:01:33 I'm not sure how this will be counted... 22:01:34 a,b,c 22:01:35 c,b,a 22:01:42 b, a, c 22:01:47 * Hydroxide notes that c is the condorcet loser - much less clear who the condorcet winner is 22:01:59 c 22:02:03 (b) beats (c) in all cases 22:02:08 can we agree somebody will count this and send an email to the list? 22:02:09 * jeremyb returns to backlog 22:02:12 DrDub, haha 22:02:14 micah: no in mine and h01ger ... 22:02:15 #save 22:02:28 h01ger: voting for one is a null vote :) 22:02:39 could you please vote ONE and decide now? 22:02:43 Hydroxide, we didnt define a voting method 22:02:46 but, ok, I will feed it into a condorcet script and email the list 22:02:47 who's missing? 22:02:48 h01ger: true :) 22:02:49 no it's not. unranked are after ranked. 22:03:00 * h01ger thinks this meeting has turned into silly 22:03:00 please, let's move to Queue B 22:03:01 dkg: I can count his as c, [ab] 22:03:04 h01ger: indeed :) 22:03:09 Hydroxide, and its not funny 22:03:14 DrDub: sure. 22:03:21 DrDub: no, there is at least another 2 cutting options in the table 22:03:30 h01ger: if you have a proposal of how to get us out of this meeting, please do! 22:03:37 Hydroxide, i'll just go to bed 22:03:42 ana: let us MOVE ON 22:03:51 * Hydroxide proposes #endmeeting followed by /part 22:03:52 * edrz hasn't voted and won't and thinks there are many more important things to discuss 22:03:53 DrDub change the topic 22:04:03 i reserved one hour for the meeting as usual, knowing i'll need 1.5 or 2, but... 22:04:04 please 22:04:12 DrDub: .... there is more way to cut into the budget, why they should not be discussed? 22:04:12 please everybody, minimize OT messages, they just make the meeting goes longer (including this one of mine) 22:04:20 can we agree on somebody will count the votes and send the results to the list to continue discussion by email 22:04:24 so what did we agree on this? are we really going to go ahead with Hydroxide running the results through the condorcet script? 22:04:31 as DrDub says :) 22:04:45 * DrDub is agreed-happy so object quickly 22:04:53 ana: what other possible cuts did you want to raise? 22:05:07 I'd be fine with Hydroxide running the votes through a condorcet script 22:05:21 one is: remove the 2nd building we have for talks 22:05:24 #agreed Hydroxide will send the votes through the condorcet script and send the results to the list to continue discussion by email 22:05:27 #topic bursary and queue B 22:05:30 the room itself is free but we save security costs 22:05:38 #agreed Hydroxide will send the votes through the condorcet script and send the results to the list to continue discussion by email 22:05:39 ana: i don't understand that? 22:05:44 but ana where would we hold the talks? 22:05:46 OR just limite that room to when we do not have to pay a security guard 22:05:49 the talks rooms are in the same building. 22:05:52 ana: that won't really work (based on what we have) 22:05:56 ana: I thought all talks were in that building? do we have another option? 22:05:56 that's unrelated to daytrip, ana 22:05:59 for my understandting we have a 2nd building? 22:06:04 DrDub: i am talking about the budget 22:06:05 DrDub: yes, you said we moved on from daytrip! 22:06:06 ah 22:06:10 great 22:06:22 ok, so if MrBeige says it does not work, it does not work 22:06:25 another option: 22:06:32 ana: we have a second building, but we'll only have security for 1h there at the end of the day, and it's the only talk room building 22:06:35 famous last words: there where times, when this was about rough consensus and not about votes. /me will start a GR to get that back. 22:06:43 cutting sponsorship for queue A 22:06:44 MrBeige: what about the times, could we move talks to be more in the already-security-guarded times? 22:06:50 just for clarification, we are on the "Budget Update" agenda, in the sub-agenda item "Budget Cuts" which was not on the agenda in the first place 22:06:55 to save security costs: end talks sooner, close hacklabs sooner, reduce our weekend hours 22:06:58 or putting that to 60-80% 22:07:07 ok, MrBeige's option 22:07:30 (ending talks at 18:00 would save $55/day * 5 days) 22:07:32 what have you said already to Queue A people? 22:07:37 zack: nothing 22:07:38 any weekend hour reductions go almost directly into savings 22:07:53 we can hold that more time 22:07:54 #info we're discussing budget cuts 22:08:02 any hacklab closing earlier in the night would go directly to $55/hour 22:08:17 MrBeige: I think hacklab time is one of the few definitely useful things 22:08:20 ending talks at 18:00 was not possible with a 2 hour lunch, iirc. 22:08:20 MrBeige: can you remind us what's the current plan for closing hours? 22:08:25 * zack nods at moray 22:08:26 I thought Queue A was already notified 22:08:39 MrBeige: but it may make sense to push talk hours 22:08:40 i agree night hacklab is very important 22:08:41 noone has been notified about definite sponsorship 22:08:44 can we focus on cuts and then move on to bursary? 22:08:47 isn't there free talk time at 9am that we're not making use of? 22:08:58 micah: this is a possible cut 22:09:12 can we have one thing talked about at once? 22:09:14 marga: close 23:00 during debcamp, 03:00 during debconf, all night one one or two weekend days 22:09:29 MrBeige: when is the talk building open to without extra payment? 22:09:34 18? 22:09:47 talk building open 0830 to 1800 without extra payment 22:09:50 though 55*5 is pretty small 22:09:52 (weekend we have to pay for) 22:10:15 the 2 hours lunch is hard to avoid, but maybe we don't have another choice and push to start earlier? 22:10:18 Clint: we can't start talks at the same time we get into the rooms. 22:10:24 oh, i see 22:10:35 ana: we don't *need* a 2 hour lunchbreak from talks 22:10:35 this meeting is already 10' overrun 22:10:44 and not just from a v-t perspective. 22:10:46 edrz: I can let you in early no problem, don't worry about that 22:10:53 moray: i am not sure we can eat all in less time 22:10:54 we can finish here and reconvene this Friday per the poll I sent before the meeting 22:11:03 i made the 2 hour lunch break after vociferous objections to a shorter lunch 22:11:04 i dont think we need a two hour lunch break 22:11:05 ana: sure, but not everyone will be *in* talks 22:11:08 i'm happy to make it shorter. 22:11:17 but honestly 1.5 hrs is nice 22:11:20 also, when dkg was doing the scheduling most people didn't think 9am talks would be attended. 22:11:22 1.5 hour lunch break sounds nice 22:11:26 Yes, 1.5 hours would be ok. 22:11:27 a little breathing room 22:11:27 some peolpe can miss a talk and go eat, peolp ewon't go to all 22:11:38 could we start at 9:30 or is a full hour needed for setup? 22:11:57 * MrBeige can let people into the rooms early in the morning to allow set-up time 22:11:58 dkg: I guess all those issues were before we realized the payments involved? 22:12:04 start talks earlier is not nice, but when it costs you a considerable amount of money, you have to rethink 22:12:15 ahh yea if we start at 9:30 and do 1.5 hr lunch than we can solve this problems 22:12:16 DrDub: yes, i think that's right 22:12:30 Clint, biella_: nice combination indeed 22:12:39 edrz: is that too tight? 22:12:42 * dkg is fine with that schedule adjustment. 22:12:57 #topic budget cuts 22:12:59 MrBeige: how much we save starting at 9:30 and 1.5h lunch? 22:13:01 me 2, it is not crack of dawn, a little later, but then we finish at 6, which is frankly nice too 22:13:07 i don't like it when talks go late 22:13:08 Can we agree on that and finish the meeting? 22:13:11 Clint: i'm sorry i'm having trouble keeping up ... 22:13:16 Yeah, starting 9:30 and finishing at 18:00 with 1:30 lunch, leaves 7 slots. 22:13:19 ana: $275 = 55*5 22:13:23 * edrz about 2 minutes back 22:13:26 sounds awesome 22:13:26 ok 22:13:37 I can reduce weekend security hours 22:13:47 DrDub: if you want, I'd like to share some comments on queue, but if you (all) have to go I can mail them 22:13:49 so what is the text for the agreed 22:14:00 zack: I'm fine 22:14:01 so plan on saving several hundred by reducing weekend talk hours, too 22:14:06 zack: we *should* get to the 'bursary' stuff 22:14:10 zack: but will need the rest to focus 22:14:11 zack: IMO 22:14:16 zack: which sounds.... difficult 22:14:39 DrDub: as far as I can tell there is an "agree on 9:30 talk start, 1.5 hr break" 22:14:48 dkg, MrBeige, ana, biella_ : what is the text for the agreed? 22:14:53 zack: the first 20 minutes were silly, I don't think cost-cutting is lacking focus even if it raises costs to cut that weren't on the agenda 22:14:57 "agree on 9:30 talk start, 1.5 hr break" 22:15:05 er, DrDub ^ 22:15:10 #agreed 9:30 talk start, 1.5 hr break 22:15:12 beautiful 22:15:17 Clint: with MrBeige letting v-t in earlier than 9, the 9:30 start seems doable. 22:15:18 DrDub: move pre-lunch talks 30 minutes earlier. move post-lunch talks 1 hour earlier. 22:15:21 "end talks by 18:00" 22:15:23 bursary & cost cutting proposal: 22:15:28 ""agree on 9:30 talk start, 1.5 hr break" 22:15:31 can we discuss bursary before closing the meeting? 22:15:33 hold more the sponsorship of queue A until we know we really can afford it 22:15:39 or people need to go? 22:15:44 I'm available 22:15:45 and yes, that means B out of the map 22:15:46 we're already 15' over time 22:15:48 i'm available. 22:15:55 #topic bursary 22:15:56 * marga is here. 22:15:59 to me too B seems pretty much out, unless we raise more money 22:16:12 and A is questionable -- though I realise it's about the time we need to tell people *now* 22:16:17 (or already too late) 22:16:24 can we tell the first N on A at least? 22:16:28 queue A is already in the budget 100%, right? 22:16:33 yes 22:16:34 yes 22:16:35 zack: yes 22:16:40 though 90% had been proposed 22:16:52 I was hoping we had already sent out messages to Queue A 22:16:55 I'm available to continue 22:16:59 micah: great 22:17:18 OK, so can we agree on sending out emails for Queue A? 22:17:27 anybody objects? 22:17:27 DrDub: saying what? 22:17:36 #help update talks schedule SQL needed to move pre-lunch 30 minutes earlier & post-lunch 1hr earlier 22:17:37 we're still discussing what if any to fund for queue A 22:17:38 the proposal is: we send an email to Queue A to let them know their travel sponsorship is 100% covered 22:17:55 schultmc: funding it? at least up to level N which doesn't put us on red/ 22:18:09 I can send emails to queue A once we come to a decision 22:18:16 Why is it 100% or nothing? 22:18:17 budget.ods has A at 100% atm 22:18:18 micah: well, ana and I just queried that, so I'd like some reasoning/numbers 22:18:23 schultmc: yes, that's what I'm asking, for a decision 22:18:24 it doesn't have to be 22:18:29 #info 22 in queue A, 13 in queue B 22:18:30 sorry: if you proposed 90% why now raising it? it sounds silly 22:18:31 is there a specific budget surplus people are targeting? 22:18:34 i would promise 50% of queue A 22:18:36 marga: its just the current proposal 22:18:37 Can't we say, we can promiss 80%, we'll see if we can cover the rest? 22:18:42 that is 17140 / 2 22:19:05 I'd like to promiss 80% to queue A and 50% to queue B, but I don't know if the cuts were sufficient for that. 22:19:06 zack: Queue A has always been 100% funded 22:19:22 counter-proposal promiss 80% to queue A and 50% to queue B 22:19:23 i am with marga 22:19:28 counter-proposal: promiss 80% to queue A and 50% to queue B 22:19:30 nevermind, I've misread Clint comment 22:19:31 "I'd like to promiss 80% to queue A and 50% to queue B, but I don't know if the cuts were sufficient for that." 22:19:42 I don't think we've cut enough, but I'd like to hear numbers 22:19:42 OK 22:19:51 I mean, not enough to give money to queue B 22:19:58 80% to A and 50% to B would be 20.2k total 22:20:09 ~3K more than 100% A 22:20:23 which would be fine given ana's latest budget 22:20:32 #info we told queue A "we will work on fulfilling the requests"; we told queue B, "we will work on fulfilling the requests but not necessarily at 100%" 22:20:33 DrDub: 'fine' = what actual numbers? 22:20:52 moray: the budget.ods that ana updated 22:20:53 (presumably, some of each might drop out if not fully funded?) 22:21:05 #info 80% A is 13712.06 50% B is 6523.50 22:21:22 fil: well, we can try to give them more money as it becomes available... 22:21:23 DrDub: that won't work well for people reading the log :) 22:21:23 fil: i do not see peopel from A dropping 22:21:28 micah: and then mailed queue a again, right? 22:21:32 i think everybody there has tickets already 22:21:36 i dont know about B 22:21:41 jeremyb: only about food and accomodation sponsorship 22:21:49 oh 22:21:54 #info budget.ods as per revision 1489 22:21:56 ana: in that case, let's give them less ;-) 22:21:59 moray: thanks 22:22:20 i am sorry, but i really think we should stop with 80 % to A 22:22:31 ana: if people in B don't have tickets, their expense estimates are probably moot anyhow 22:22:32 aha 22:22:39 zack: right, flights will be much more now 22:22:40 and have some "mattress" money there 22:22:55 DrDub: dinero colchón? 22:22:56 zack: there's also the point that giving 50% only helps people who initially lied about how much they 'need'... 22:23:09 ones who really needed the amount they requested won't be able to come anyway 22:23:10 ana: jeje 22:23:19 so, I think you should decide on a base percentage which is not "too scary" and keep the possibility of refunding more later on 22:23:26 moray: likewise 80% 22:23:35 zack: yes, 80% / 50% sounds a good compromise 22:23:39 fil: indeed 22:23:51 after that how many money do we have left? 22:23:58 2k 22:24:01 too low 22:24:05 well 22:24:06 we need more buffer money 22:24:10 fil: I think I'd rather use the *queue* and sponsor 80% (or whatever) of them the money they asked 22:24:13 we need at least 10k USD 22:24:16 we'll save money from the new security for talks 22:24:37 DrDub: that is something like 500 USD 22:24:40 what about we go for 80% queue A now 22:24:45 ah 22:24:48 moray: yes, i also think that 22:25:07 what about we go for 80% Queue A until we hit the 10k? 22:25:30 10k is already a pretty small amount out of the overall budget, so I definitely recommend against going below that 22:25:35 DrDub: what do you mean? 22:25:55 if you mean 'until we have 10k left for unexpected costs' 22:26:03 exactly 22:26:19 80% queue A only gives us a buffer of 8.5k 22:26:22 moray: especially since we've ensured by dithering that they pay more on flights -- some will probably drop out because flights will have doubled in price, allowing the money to trickle to the end of the queue 22:26:42 fil: yes 22:26:48 OK, can we agree on that? 22:26:51 wait 22:26:57 70% queue A, 0% queue B leaves us with 10k 22:27:01 there are three different proposals on the table 22:27:09 as far as I see them 22:27:14 +1 " 70% queue A, 0% queue B leaves us with 10k" 22:27:18 70% seems quite good 22:27:24 I don't really agree with the 10k buffer myself, but there seems to be a consensus about that. 22:27:35 yeah, but 0% queue B is a bit excessive, IMHO 22:27:39 proposal: 100% of queue A, 70% of queue B 22:27:41 if we later do not need the 10k buffer we can complete 22:27:43 Yeah, me too. 22:27:56 micah: where do you get the money for that? 22:28:03 zack: we're still talking about spending $70 000 more than we raised 22:28:19 we would need to ask for money from Debian to do that 22:28:28 moray: sure, I'm just trying to understand whether we can move money to the queues from somewhere else 22:28:32 marga: do you think we need more buffer? like how much? 22:28:50 zack: also remember that each sponsored person who wouldn't otherwise come costs about $700 on top of the plane fare 22:28:51 ana: no, I meant less buffer. 22:28:56 my point is that having people there is more important than having more fancy events with less people there 22:28:58 zack: (not included in the queue costings) 22:29:14 zack: right, I think this meeting already cut the 'fancy' events 22:29:15 Clint: you have opposed dropping Queue B very strongly, still there? 22:29:22 ana: I'd rather sponsor people travelling and cut more stuff. Also, I understand that the security cuts are no already in the spreadsheet. 22:29:24 zack: the big costs are the expensive accommodation and food 22:29:31 well, if we remove the daytrip, sponsoring 100 % queue A, leave us a 8k USD buffer 22:29:43 that sounds good to me 22:29:56 have anybody seen who are in Queue B? 22:29:57 ana: with 0% queue B ? 22:30:00 zack: which it's too late to reduce really 22:30:02 sorry, sponsored day trip 22:30:09 we will be missing key participants. Speakers of talks, etc. 22:30:16 zack: yes, but give only 20 % to queue B sounds ridicolous 22:30:20 DrDub: i don't have a full handle on the fiscal goals at this meeting 22:30:23 DrDub: then why are they in queue B? 22:30:28 bursary.ods is in -team svn 22:30:43 ana: removing daytrip, 80% A / 50% B leaves us with a 5k buffer. 22:30:50 marga: perfect 22:30:55 which is tiny 22:30:58 yup 22:30:59 marga: that sounds much better IMVHO 22:31:06 yes but sounds much better 22:31:06 compared to the unexpected costs that have sprung up recently 22:31:15 maybe we can try to cut somewhere else 22:31:16 5k in NYC with a group this size can evaporate in no time 22:31:17 moray: yes, but that's without the security hour cuts. 22:31:28 marga: only about $250 in those so far 22:31:41 marga: not thousands 22:31:47 moray: that assumes that all of those people turn up -- I realy dount that at this late stage 22:31:48 moray: I tought it was much more during weekends, might have misunderstood. 22:31:53 ok, proporsal: we'll have better numbers in 2 days 22:31:56 Also, I agree with fil. 22:32:03 what about remove daytrip, 80% queue A 22:32:20 and if the numbers are good in 2 days (After payments /cancelations etc) we do 50 % of B 22:32:26 OK, can we wrap-up proposals? 22:32:37 * micah notes 6 proposals are on the table 22:32:42 11.4k surplus with no daytrip, 80% A 22:32:47 ana: that sounds better to me (subject to my reservations about funding percentages) 22:33:03 proposal 1: remove sponsored daytrip, fund 80 % queue A, if numbers are good in 3 days (after payment /deadlines crazyness), we do 50 % of B 22:33:06 ana: so, it'd be: remove day trip, mail today 80% A. Look at the numbers after the payment deadline and see if we can do 50% B ? 22:33:12 yes 22:33:36 i will send the numbers to the list on friday 22:33:36 micah: your proposal, again 22:33:40 there are 6 ones 22:33:43 #info proposal 1: remove sponsored daytrip, fund 80 % queue A, if numbers are good in 3 days (after payment /deadlines crazyness), we do 50 % of B 22:33:44 that I've been tracking from various people 22:33:53 ana: please Cc: leader@d.o 22:34:00 well, I want for people to restate them 22:34:07 1. sponsor 100% of queue A, 0% of queue B 22:34:12 2. sponsor 80% queue A and 50% to queue B 22:34:15 3. sponsor 80% queue A until 10k limit 22:34:18 because I think their views have been changing due to the discussion 22:34:20 4. 70% queue A, 0% queue B 22:34:26 5. 100% of queue A, 70% of queue B 22:34:31 6. remove daytrip, 80% queue A 22:34:34 zack: ok 22:35:00 micah: OK, let's let the people who propose each to re-raise them via #info 22:35:08 +1 DrDub 22:35:15 micah: you brought one up, make it proposal 2 22:35:26 #info proposal 1: remove sponsored daytrip, fund 80 % queue A, if numbers are good in 3 days (after payment /deadlines crazyness), we do 50 % of B (to be mailed in friday) 22:36:02 anybody else? I think ana's proposal is a consensus one with other's 22:36:13 ana: does that mean delaying the emails to tell people they're sponsored even longer? 22:36:23 fil: for Queue B 22:36:25 i dont consense to that proposal :) 22:36:38 micah: I know, that's why I'm asking you to #info yours 22:36:40 DrDub: fair enough 22:36:54 fil: if I were in Queue B I'd be building a raft by now... :-( 22:36:58 we can send them an " we have not give up" email 22:37:13 #info proposal #2: sponsor 100% of queue A, 70% of queue B - ask for 6.3k from Debian to make this happen 22:37:22 great 22:37:25 anybody else? 22:37:41 we have made some assumptions about the money we will be paying to columbia 22:37:51 we'll know in friday how right we were.. :) 22:38:06 OK, I think this meeting has gone way too long and I don't think we can really continue discussing these two proposals. 22:38:26 * Hydroxide suggests once again #endmeeting and /part... 22:38:29 #info make that 6.5k, sorry 22:38:38 also, proposal #1 subsumes the daytrip issues and proposal #2 assumes we get money from Debian 22:38:47 if we end now, no one gets sponsorship mail until the next meeting 22:38:57 we can try to have an emergency meeting tomorrow 22:38:58 * ana nods at moray and DrDub 22:39:03 #topic emergency meeting 22:39:14 i am not sure it works for european lost sleeping time 2 nights in row 22:39:17 proposal: mail anyhow queue A with 80%, if proposal 2 "wins" they will be happier of getting 100% 22:39:18 can we have an emergency meeting right now? 22:39:26 * micah votes for emergency meeting now 22:39:35 dkg: it seems like it would be better attended than one tomorrow, yes 22:39:38 +1 zack 22:39:43 dkg, micah: that's unfair to the people who have already tune out 22:39:50 zack is right 22:39:54 * fil thinks we need a policy for future years to just sponsor people at queue insertion, or some such -- it just means we pay over the odds for flights doing it this way round 22:39:59 both proposals agree on Queue A at some level 22:40:00 zack: queue A with 80%, and not tell queue B anything now? 22:40:13 can we agree on that? 22:40:18 i think we should email A right now with 80% 22:40:22 great 22:40:23 micah: yes, that is a simpley min() of the two proposals 22:40:36 (to stay on the safe side and mail people ASAP anyhow) 22:40:39 ok 22:40:39 #agreed we are funding Queue A at 80% 22:40:50 who will do the mailing? please #action 22:40:51 fil: I didn't understand. 22:41:01 ok, we mail a with 80 % 22:41:04 should we let them know they MIGHT get more? 22:41:05 or no? 22:41:08 #action schultmc will mail A at 80% 22:41:10 and we mail B with: we did not give up, but still no promised 22:41:12 and we mail B with: we did not give up, but still no promises* 22:41:19 fil: i think a good deal of reform could be suggested 22:41:22 biella_: yes, why not, it is true after all 22:41:22 the chair may need to do the #action 22:41:24 fil: possibly having a policy to not spend $75k more than raised from sponsors would help allow that 22:41:32 did you get that folks? 22:41:33 OK, so no emergency meeting and we continue the discussion by mailing list? 22:41:37 moray: lol 22:41:43 OK, that it is all. Thanks everybody 22:41:46 #endmeeting