18:59:51 <vorlon> #startmeeting
18:59:51 <MeetBot> Meeting started Sat Oct 19 18:59:51 2013 UTC.  The chair is vorlon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:59:51 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:59:54 <vorlon> hurray
19:00:18 <nattie> shall i assist?
19:00:34 <vorlon> it doesn't look like anyone's added items to the agenda, but I think there probably are a few other things people want to talk about?
19:00:35 <harmoney> Please, do, nattie!
19:00:40 <nattie> ok, add me?
19:00:45 <vorlon> how?
19:00:46 <harmoney> I dunno how. :(
19:00:49 <nattie> (#addchair nattie)
19:00:52 <vorlon> #addchair nattie
19:00:53 <nattie> i think vorlon has to do that
19:01:03 <nattie> i *think* that's right
19:01:04 <vorlon> apparently that's not considered a "useful" command :)
19:01:06 <vorlon> #chair nattie
19:01:06 <MeetBot> Current chairs: nattie vorlon
19:01:12 <nattie> ah right - merci
19:01:18 <nattie> ok - all present please say hi?
19:01:23 <rafw> hi
19:01:26 <vorlon> #topic roll call
19:01:30 <nattie> (present and taking part that is)
19:01:31 <vorlon> Steve Langasek
19:01:34 <nattie> Nattie M-H
19:01:38 <harmoney> Patty L
19:01:47 <tmancill> tony mancill
19:01:58 <rafw> Raphaël W
19:02:00 <bgupta> here
19:02:12 <nattie> hello, here ;)
19:02:23 <vorlon> :)
19:02:38 <bgupta> Brian Gupta present ;p
19:02:49 <nattie> ok, last call for participants
19:02:55 <vorlon> if anyone else drops in, please announce yourself to let us know you're here; in the meantime, moving on
19:03:00 <vorlon> #topic agenda
19:03:11 <vorlon> what other topics do we have?
19:03:14 <nattie> reminder of location?
19:03:19 <nattie> of the agenda, not DC14 :)
19:03:22 <harmoney> PORTLAND, OR!
19:03:25 <harmoney> Oh. :(
19:03:26 <nattie> *g*
19:03:27 <vorlon> I think we probably wanted to discuss budget, sponsorship?
19:03:28 <vorlon> https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf14/Meetings
19:03:31 <vorlon> #link https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf14/Meetings
19:04:05 <vorlon> bgupta: is that correct?
19:04:17 <vorlon> and do we want to talk about the dc13 final report?
19:04:19 <bgupta> Yes..
19:04:32 <harmoney> yes, on DC13 final report.
19:04:54 <vorlon> ok, added those items to the agenda
19:05:01 <vorlon> anything else people want to get on the agenda?
19:05:22 <vorlon> speak now or be assured of running out of time ;)
19:05:35 <bgupta> We really need DC13 Final Report done before we can start the DC14 fundraising. And we should start fundraising soon, so we can capture any 2013 year end money.
19:05:49 <nattie> so really there's just the one BIG chunk of thing that needs discussing/fixing
19:05:55 <nattie> and the others are nice incidentals AFAICT
19:06:02 <vorlon> well, let's take those topics in order from the agenda
19:06:09 <nattie> *nods*
19:06:14 <bgupta> I emailed what I believe are the blockers for starting fundraising..
19:06:18 <vorlon> #topic DebCamp / Sprints / other hacktime: dates, accomodation, venue
19:06:53 <nattie> bgupta: moment - all in due course
19:06:57 <vorlon> so we basically have to make a decision ASAP about the rough shape of the conference, and fix the start/end dates of the official conference (vs. any adjunct sprints)
19:07:16 <vorlon> I presented the two mutually-exclusive options on the mailing list and asked people to follow up if they had opinions
19:07:27 * vorlon searches for the message-id
19:07:38 <vorlon> Message-ID: <20131012230031.GB12087@virgil.dodds.net>
19:07:47 <vorlon> there were no replies at all
19:08:12 <vorlon> I'm not sure if this means people have not had time to respond, or missed my message, or just don't feel strongly about the options when it's presented this way
19:08:30 <nattie> i think people haven't got around to responding, or think it needs more thought
19:08:43 <nattie> what i do find is there is a certain desire for pre-full-DebConf activities
19:08:48 <vorlon> well, a decision needs to be made
19:08:51 <nattie> analogous to DebCamp
19:08:52 <vorlon> so time is up
19:08:58 <nattie> yeah, that's fair enough, a decision does need to be made
19:09:31 <vorlon> right, the idea of having "stuff in addition to DebConf" is fairly non-controversial
19:09:34 <harmoney> Do the pre-full-DebConf activities need to be a week-long?
19:10:01 <harmoney> i.e. Can we appease people by having a DebCamp that lasts no more than 3 days?
19:10:08 <harmoney> (On either side of DebConf)
19:10:18 <vorlon> harmoney: are you talking about aj's proposal, or something else?
19:10:29 <vorlon> the core question here is "what are the dates for DebConf"
19:10:34 <vorlon> which we announce, put on the website, etc.
19:10:39 <harmoney> vorlon: I think I'm talkiing about aj's proposal, but am having a hard time finding it in my mess of an INBOX.
19:10:56 <harmoney> I'm also very very drawn to Lucas's suggestion.
19:10:57 <nattie> we do have a rough timeframe for the main chunk, right?
19:11:00 <vorlon> we can always add additional sprints or some small DebCamp-ish event later
19:11:05 <harmoney> Yeah.
19:11:24 <nattie> and people are of course free to get together unofficially beforehand, but i think i suggested that elsewhere
19:11:27 <vorlon> but we need to know when to tell people "all-comers are welcome, the conference is open these days"
19:11:34 <nattie> yes
19:12:09 <vorlon> so I strongly prefer option 1, having a little longer than a week for DebConf with baked-in hack time
19:12:32 <vorlon> the details of which days are which don't need to be settled yet - so this encompasses both aj's proposal and my own
19:12:33 <harmoney> I still favor having DebConf open on 23 Aug and end on 30 Aug.
19:12:35 <nattie> i actually can't see the message - let me dig up from archives
19:12:40 <harmoney> And figure out DebCamp/Sprints around that.
19:12:53 <nattie> harmoney: i think that's reasonable
19:13:18 <nattie> then there's still the *possibility* of (eg) a 21st birthday party for debian beforehand, etc. - but that's an entirely adjunct activity
19:13:41 <vorlon> harmoney: which is option 2, I believe
19:14:04 <tmancill> this is the message in question, right?  http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131012.230031.53440f20.en.html
19:14:08 <vorlon> my original strawman was Aug 23-Aug 31
19:14:17 <nattie> just a moment
19:14:30 <nattie> so that's saturday to sunday?
19:14:30 <vorlon> tmancill: yes, that was the latest call for input
19:14:41 <nattie> tmancill: thanks :)
19:14:48 <vorlon> #link http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131012.230031.53440f20.en.html call for feedback
19:14:51 <harmoney> nattie: Yes.
19:15:22 <bgupta> I didn't really follow too closely, but I think we should do the best we can do, based on the realities we are dealing with, while still coming as close to meeting people's expectations as possible.
19:15:39 <bgupta> What that means in my mind is DebConf should remain 1 week
19:15:40 <vorlon> #link http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131001.175026.0a50b91b.en.html Steve's proposal
19:15:47 <vorlon> #link http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131002.135054.6fb41220.en.html aj's proposal
19:16:18 <harmoney> I like AJ's proposal a lot.
19:16:24 <vorlon> bgupta: people do not all have the same set of expectations
19:17:18 <harmoney> bgupta: The problem is, there are people who are also opposed to DebCamp and question its value to the Debian community as a whole.
19:17:43 <bgupta> harmoney: I wasn't aware of that.
19:17:44 <vorlon> harmoney: I regard aj's proposal as the opposite of what you just said you favored... as with his proposal, I would think the dates to announce for the conference would be Aug 22-Aug 31
19:18:03 <harmoney> We can *make* outside DebConf-hacking time valuable, but I think maybe reevaluating how DebCamp (or whatever we call it) is structured is fundamental to doing that.
19:18:08 <vorlon> bgupta: I'm definitely one of those people
19:18:28 <vorlon> but this isn't about "should we have a DebCamp attached to DebConf"
19:18:40 <vorlon> this is about fixing the dates for the conference, can we please bring the discussion back around to that point?
19:18:45 <harmoney> vorlon: I would still say that DebConf would be billed as opening on 23 Aug, when talks start.
19:19:12 <vorlon> harmoney: by that reckoning it should also be listed as ending on Aug 28 when talks end.
19:19:19 <harmoney> True.
19:20:14 <vorlon> *if* we are going to have DebConf dates > 1 week, that only makes sense if part of that time is hack time.
19:20:41 <vorlon> and if we do that, I think we announce the whole date range as being "DebConf"
19:21:15 <harmoney> vorlon: I'm not sure I really like the idea of DebConf > 1 week. Finding local sponsors and trying to explain why we have a 2 week DebConf sounds nightmarish.
19:21:22 <vorlon> harmoney: nobody said 2 weeks.
19:21:31 <nattie> i think the main concern is that a lot of people would prefer to have a longer stay to justify a long-haul flight
19:22:02 <nattie> but even so, it doesn't have to be billed as debconf
19:22:12 <harmoney> nattie: That's a valid concern, but I don't understand why they can't consider holidays as part of that long-haul flight. If they don't want to holiday in Portland, they can certainly go north to Canada, or sound to Mexico.
19:22:35 <bgupta> Why not 1 week debconf, + 3 day offiical camp + NN day unofficla camp before the official camp?
19:22:59 <nattie> bgupta: that might be valid, if the last "camp" is "conf"?
19:23:27 <nattie> s/valid/viable/
19:23:34 <bgupta> sorry the order would be unofficial camp (4 days or so), then 3 day offical camp, then 7 day debconf.
19:24:17 <nattie> bgupta: i would welcome that arrangement, actually
19:24:22 <bgupta> unofficial hear means not sponsored…
19:24:26 <bgupta> here
19:24:44 <nattie> that would be fine, if cheapish accommodation could be found/negotiated
19:25:11 <vorlon> bgupta: so I am quite specifically opposed to the idea of all of our scheduled hack time being billed as an adjunct "DebCamp" outside of DebConf
19:25:40 <harmoney> nattie: Accommodation for "a few" people at the university before-hand isn't an issue at this point.
19:26:02 <nattie> harmoney: i guess the question is how many make "a few"
19:26:05 <harmoney> nattie: We may, in the end, need to assign a limit to "a few" as we approach Debconf.
19:26:24 <vorlon> my goal is that when people come to DebConf, they get a valid mixture of talks, social track, and dedicated hack time
19:26:39 <nattie> vorlon: i don't think the hack time should be *scheduled* as such
19:26:48 <harmoney> nattie: Once we have dates sorted, we can negotiate actual numbers with the university. I have a low-ball number of 50 already unofficially approved.
19:27:09 <vorlon> having "DebCamp" being "the time before or after the conference" encourages filling the conference with only talks, and I don't think that's a good dynamic
19:27:13 <nattie> harmoney: hopefully that includes me - i have to get my frontdesk in order ;)
19:27:38 <vorlon> nattie: I adamantly disagree.  There should be hack time in the schedule, otherwise people get pulled into a constant stream of talks and don't get the hack time they're looking for
19:27:44 <vorlon> (speaking from personal experience)
19:27:45 <nattie> vorlon: i don't think there should strictly be an all-day schedule of talks anyway - it leads to overload
19:28:04 <nattie> vorlon: i think we're basically agreeing, but not phrasing it the same way
19:28:05 <tmancill> vorlon: +1, I am in favor of having some "baked-in" hack time during DebConf, (whether or not it's scheduled).  This could simply mean a somewhat lighter/more elongated talk schedule.
19:28:23 <nattie> tmancill: i think you're basically saying what i'm saying
19:28:24 <vorlon> nattie: right, so it seems - so I think the way to address that, without reducing the available number of talk slots, is to leave explicit space in the schedule, and that means stretching the week
19:28:46 <vorlon> we can fine-tune later what we think is the right internal structure, whether half-day blocks for hacking is better, or full-day, or whatever
19:29:01 <harmoney> 21 Aug - 31 Aug, then?
19:29:12 <nattie> another problem i can see is people not necessarily getting time off for an elongated debconf-proper
19:29:18 <vorlon> harmoney: 21 isn't possible, there's no accomodation :)
19:29:47 <nattie> 23-31 then? :)
19:30:08 <rafw> What about setup time before the first day of talk ?
19:30:14 <vorlon> I'm happy with either 22-31 or 23-31
19:30:21 <vorlon> rafw: that's not a problem
19:30:22 <rafw> don't we need to setup network and video, etc?
19:30:41 <vorlon> there's accomodation /for the setup crew/.  There's no accomodation for everyone who will arrive on day 1.
19:30:43 <harmoney> rafw: Yes, and that's my low-ball pre-arrival approval for accommodations.
19:30:52 <rafw> great
19:31:53 <harmoney> vorlon is in the process of rebooting his laptop.
19:32:20 <harmoney> The dates we pick would be the first day of talks, the last would be the last day of talks, so arrival and depature would be beyond those dates.
19:32:55 <harmoney> nattie: Can you help us finalize this agenda item, call for objections and then move forward? :)
19:33:22 <harmoney> If we go with 22-31, that means talks start on 22 Aug, so arrival would have to be before that.
19:34:05 <nattie> any objections to the dates being 23-31 august, with arrival day on 22 august?
19:34:16 <nattie> speak now, or forever hold your peace...
19:34:21 <bgupta> I'm going to let the room decide, but I can say that a 9 day conference may be tough for people.
19:35:01 <tmancill> bgupta:  can you elaborate?  Too long or too short?
19:35:08 <rafw> So the plan is to do talks and hacking time during these 9 days right?
19:35:09 <nattie> that can be the talk team's problem
19:35:15 <harmoney> rafw: Yes.
19:35:16 <bgupta> too long… when asking for time off from work.
19:35:40 <nattie> bgupta: i *was* trying to say that...  but it can be the talk team's problem trying to schedule specific speakers to specific days that then *can* get off
19:35:49 <harmoney> Though, we can also coordinate talks and such after we set the dates.
19:36:42 <vorlon> right, I think that would be one of the considerations for scheduling
19:36:50 <harmoney> We could arrange certain tracks at certain points during the conference, so people who have time constraint concerns would know which part of the conference is most important to them
19:36:55 <nattie> yes
19:37:00 <tmancill> well, the only work days in that window are 25-29, same as if we had a week-long conference.  Would it help to push the start to Aug 24 (Sunday)?
19:37:02 <vorlon> so we probably want to make sure the substantive talks are all somewhere in the "middle"
19:37:04 <nattie> so...  any further objections?
19:37:10 <rafw> That looks like a good idea to have free afternoon hacking time with no talk so people can do whatever they like for the project.
19:37:17 <nattie> it's not like what is done at DC14 has to be repeated in subsequent conferences
19:37:26 <nattie> the scheduling model may well be unique to DC14
19:37:29 <vorlon> tmancill: I would much rather we keep 23 as the start date even if it's hacking-only (or hacking+opening talk)
19:37:42 <harmoney> rafw: That's the core of Steve's proposal. :)
19:37:57 <rafw> I just got it.
19:37:59 <tmancill> vorlon: no objection from, just trying to understand bgupta's concern
19:38:00 <rafw> :)
19:38:15 <tmancill> s/from/from *me*/
19:38:25 <harmoney> tmancill: The people who are going to be most concerned about time are probably going to be US-centric (where we have limited vacation time). STarting on a saturday with hacking /opening will make it a bit easier on them
19:38:42 <harmoney> And the Europeans can get their "longer than a week for a long flight" wish granted. ;)
19:38:50 <vorlon> TBH, it's because I'm an American with limited vacation time that I've pushed for this approach, because a two-week DebCamp+DebConf has always been right out for me :)
19:39:16 <vorlon> so I think we can lock this in and move on, yes?
19:39:21 <nattie> sure
19:39:22 <harmoney> Yes, please.
19:39:26 <harmoney> bgupta: ?
19:39:39 <bgupta> It's not my decision..
19:39:39 <rafw> ok for me
19:39:44 <nattie> dates are 23-31 August 2014, arrival day is 22 August?
19:39:49 <nattie> just to confirm before i record it
19:39:59 <vorlon> #agreed DebConf 14 dates set at 23-31 Aug 2014, inclusive, not counting arrival/departure dates
19:40:02 <harmoney> bgupta: Of course it is. Your voice is equally as important here. If you have objections, we need to at least get them noted.
19:40:11 <harmoney> nattie: Yes.
19:40:46 <vorlon> thanks :)
19:40:49 <vorlon> next topic!
19:41:07 <vorlon> #topic budget, sponsorship team kick-off
19:41:25 <vorlon> as noted this is kind of a piece with the final report question, but, well.  the topics will bleed into each other
19:41:46 <vorlon> bgupta: you mentioned you've sent a kick-off mail to the sponsorship team - thanks for that
19:41:53 <rafw> yes, the final report is needed before we can contact current DC13 sponsors.
19:42:07 <vorlon> I can understand that perspective
19:42:30 <rafw> But on the other hand we can set up team, brochure and levels.
19:42:33 <nattie> could we discuss the report in the next agenda item, please?
19:42:36 <nattie> (interpolated)
19:42:37 <rafw> And contact local sponsors in US.
19:42:38 <vorlon> but I don't think we want to entirely block sponsorship work on the final report
19:43:00 <vorlon> - I'm told that for many corporations, they need to get the sponsorship agreed before the end of the calendar year
19:43:12 <nattie> *nods*
19:43:13 <rafw> I would suggest to set up the brochure and level first.
19:43:24 <nattie> what we definitely *don't* want to happen is delays like after DC10 and 11
19:43:25 <vorlon> - we have a ripe list of new sponsors we'd like to pursue this year, and those shouldn't block on the final report
19:43:44 <vorlon> so yes, I agree that we need to focus on the brochure and sponsorship leves
19:43:47 <vorlon> +l
19:43:50 <rafw> vorlon: yes, that is what i am saying
19:44:16 <rafw> so, we should discuss the level.
19:44:19 <vorlon> can someone spell out what's been proposed so far for the sponsorship levels
19:44:20 <bgupta> alll these things can dbbe done in parallel.
19:44:23 <vorlon> ?
19:44:32 <vorlon> for those of us who don't know the DC13 sponsorship levels off the top of our head
19:44:44 <bgupta> the only proposal so far ahas been to convert the CHF #s into USD and use the same.
19:44:51 <rafw> the thing is everything was in CHF.
19:44:58 <vorlon> yes, but I don't know what "the same" means :)
19:45:01 <rafw> Platinum 25'000 CHF
19:45:06 <rafw> Gold 12'000
19:45:12 <rafw> Silver 6000
19:45:19 <rafw> Bronze 2000
19:45:28 <bgupta> http://media.debconf.org/dc13/sponsors/DebConf13_SponsoringBrochure.pdf (For bookmarking)
19:45:36 <vorlon> #link http://media.debconf.org/dc13/sponsors/DebConf13_SponsoringBrochure.pdf sponsorship levels from dc13
19:45:40 <vorlon> thanks
19:45:43 <vorlon> so how does this compare with DC10
19:45:44 <vorlon> ?
19:45:47 <bgupta> we dropped steel which was $500 or $1000.
19:45:48 <vorlon> that's probably the best point of comparison
19:45:54 <bgupta> a lot more
19:46:03 <rafw> we had Supporter below 2000
19:46:26 <harmoney> So, that'd be $28,000 Platinum, $14,000 gold, $6600 Silver, $2300 Bronze
19:46:37 <bgupta> looking..
19:46:40 <tmancill> I think it's the other way
19:46:45 <tmancill> multiply by 0.9
19:46:56 <nattie> harmoney: i thought it was just to substitute the symbol?
19:46:57 <tmancill> 22500, 10800, 5400, 1800
19:46:58 <moray> hi
19:47:01 <vorlon> harmoney: I thought the proposal on the table was "use the same nice round numbers, but say USD instead of CHF"
19:47:03 <harmoney> (At least, Yahoo Finance tells me so)
19:47:09 * vorlon waves to moray
19:47:10 <nattie> vorlon: *nods*
19:47:15 <harmoney> vorlon: Oh oh, that sounds much better.
19:47:22 <rafw> tmancill: nope it is correct i think.
19:47:25 <vorlon> well, I don't know how much better it sounds
19:47:36 <vorlon> because there seems to be concern that these levels are too high for US sponsors
19:47:47 <vorlon> bgupta: I don't suppose you can find a ref to the exact numbers for dc10?
19:47:54 * vorlon is looking currently
19:47:57 <bgupta> still looking sorry
19:47:58 * tmancill got it backwards...  thanks rafw
19:48:13 <rafw> I am always confuse with these exchange rates.
19:48:47 <rafw> I think the level should more or less stay the same.
19:48:50 <nattie> $27,718.49 is 25K CHF
19:48:54 <vorlon> svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/debconf-data/dc10/sponsors/ has content
19:49:34 <moray> normally we want them to more or less stay the same, or at least to avoid accidentally having sponsors drop down in amount because of how we define them
19:49:54 <moray> but that's "more or less the same (plus inflation)" over a couple of years, so far
19:50:09 <vorlon> that makes sense to me
19:50:10 <moray> even if perhaps we should define them in a less venue-specific way in the long-term (it's not clear)
19:50:25 <vorlon> but bgupta seems to be concerned that this won't fly with US sponsors
19:50:33 <vorlon> bgupta: perhaps you can expand
19:51:15 <vorlon> found the numbers from DC10: bronze $2k, silver $10k, gold $20k, platinum $30k
19:51:18 <bgupta> think I found it http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debconf-data/dc10/sponsors/sponsorpack.pdf?view=co
19:51:29 <nattie> so not *really* that far off
19:51:38 <vorlon> so indeed, these numbers aren't actually all that different between DC10 and DC13
19:51:54 <harmoney> If anything, look a little lower for DC13.
19:52:03 <vorlon> platinum and silver were cheaper for DC13 than DC10, bronze and gold were more expensive
19:52:06 <vorlon> er, no
19:52:25 <nattie> i'd be fine with just taking the DC13 amounts and changing the currency symbol - things aren't *quite* as outrageously expensive in the states as in .ch ;)
19:52:36 <bgupta> right …. the big differences being that bronze for DC10 got people some benefits.. other than the website link
19:52:37 <bgupta> and we had a steel level
19:52:48 <moray> please don't reintroduce more levels :)
19:52:51 <bgupta> bronze sponsors for DC10 got linux mag ad and shirt.
19:53:02 <vorlon> silver, gold, platinum were *all* more expensive for DC10 than DC13
19:54:06 <vorlon> bgupta: I don't see why we couldn't give them shirts at bronze
19:54:36 <vorlon> is this something that needs a team-wide discussion, really?
19:54:45 <moray> normally the sponsorship team propose something then it gets signed off
19:54:52 <nattie> indeed
19:55:13 <nattie> we're already at about an hour in - anything more concrete to add?
19:55:14 <vorlon> bgupta: would you be happy taking the action to draft a proposal for the DC14 sponsorship levels?
19:55:28 <harmoney> In that case, I like the idea of just changing the currency and declaring those our levels.
19:55:31 <vorlon> possibly with rafw's input if he has concerns
19:55:40 <harmoney> annnnd.. unlag. Nice.
19:56:01 <bgupta> #action bgupta draft a proposal for DC14 sponsors level (with discussion with sponsors-team)
19:56:04 <vorlon> but I'm pretty easy here, I trust the sponsorship team to be able to figure out the levels
19:56:22 <vorlon> what's a deadline for this?
19:56:33 <moray> well, it's needed for the brochure
19:56:43 <bgupta> it should be done in time for final spnsors brochure.
19:56:48 <nattie> end of the month?
19:56:53 <nattie> that's just short of two weeks
19:57:05 <vorlon> bgupta: is that acceptable?  submitted for signoff by end of month?
19:57:08 <bgupta> We can't really start fundraising without brochure..
19:57:23 <moray> we could say something like, we go with just changing the currency sign, unless a better proposal is agreed this month :)
19:57:24 <vorlon> bgupta: you can set yourself a sooner deadline if you wish :)
19:57:33 <vorlon> I just want to make sure that actions come with due dates ;)
19:57:49 <bgupta> vorlon: End of month is fine, but I want to get it done sooner.
19:58:02 <rafw> moray: +1
19:58:09 <vorlon> bgupta: ok.  So I won't start nagging you until the end of the month :)
19:58:19 <nattie> bgupta: we're just giving you a little bit of a bugger.  of course, if it's done earlier, so much the better!
19:58:24 <nattie> buffer, even
19:58:25 <harmoney> #action bgupta draft a proposal for DC14 sponsors level (with discussion with sponsors-team). DUE 31 October
19:58:25 <vorlon> #action bgupta draft a proposal for DC14 sponsors level (with discussion with sponsors-team), due for submission to sign-off by debconf-team by October 31
19:58:42 <vorlon> (not sure if #action is a chair-only command, would be nice if this MeetBot would give feedback :)
19:58:59 <nattie> #save
19:59:12 <vorlon> so that's one piece
19:59:34 <vorlon> there's also the question of the brochure itself
19:59:42 <bgupta> The big piece is the brochure. That's totally out of my skillset.
19:59:43 <nattie> yep, all showing up
19:59:58 <moray> well, "personalised" text isn't all that useful
20:00:07 <harmoney> What skillset does the brochure need? Just a copy editor?
20:00:10 <moray> but updating the pictures definitely is, and adding at least a paragraph on this year
20:00:12 <vorlon> bgupta: help us understand what's needed there - is it more than just taking the previous document and slapping a fresh coat of paint on it?
20:00:17 <moray> vorlon: shouldn't be
20:01:09 <moray> oh
20:01:25 <moray> except that you should revert to the prettier version, compared to last year
20:01:35 <moray> ;)
20:01:40 <bgupta> Well working with svg  and other desktop publishing tools..
20:01:46 <vorlon> this also needs to be finished in the same timeframe (end of month), so we can make progress on hitting up sponsors this year as soon as levels are set
20:01:52 <vorlon> bgupta: ok
20:01:57 <moray> but yes, it's just editing some SVG
20:02:03 <vorlon> right, so svg is the source rather than TeX, how weird ;)
20:02:20 <vorlon> I'm sure I could muddle through, but maybe someone else would like to take care of this?
20:02:23 <moray> and (preferably more than last year) adding some pretty pictures
20:02:43 <vorlon> tmancill: any chance this is something you'd be interested in helping with?
20:02:49 <bgupta> It's more important that it get done soon than super pretty.
20:03:10 <harmoney> moray: I have lots of pretty pictures of the venue; is that what you're looking for? I'm sure we can also dig into attendees' galleries and ask to pull some out for the brochure.
20:03:11 <bgupta> (Although both would be great)
20:03:39 <moray> harmoney: one or two venue ones, one or two of work happening during the most recent DebConf
20:04:06 <moray> and maybe this year we can use tick/check marks, rather than square root signs
20:04:12 <bgupta> I can start digging up as many of the previous ones as I can.. I think many are still in svn.
20:04:23 <vorlon> I'm sure they're all still there
20:04:28 <vorlon> bgupta: I don't think you need to go any trouble digging
20:04:35 <bgupta> kk
20:04:38 <vorlon> I think we just need someone to own this action
20:04:39 * tmancill knows nothing about SVG.  TeX would be nice.
20:04:50 <vorlon> tmancill: inkscape is the editor of choice :)
20:04:53 <nattie> right - so we're aiming for the sponsorship brochure being done by the end of this month, right?
20:05:09 <nattie> with details being filled in when the levels are fixed
20:05:26 <vorlon> I'd be happy to see these converted to TeX in the future if feasible, but for right now we probably need it just done with the existing template, which means editing the svg instead of trascoding to TeX
20:05:27 <moray> the text will also need slightly reworded around debconf/"camp"
20:05:28 <bgupta> 95% can be done without the levels.
20:05:37 <nattie> bgupta: yes.
20:05:44 <moray> vorlon: it's not really useful to convert it
20:05:55 <harmoney> moray tmancill: I can supply all images of the venue, and 1 of work happening. I'll see if I can find something in attendee gallery and get permissions for another work image.
20:05:59 <vorlon> moray: fair enough, I thought that might be a problem
20:06:00 <moray> vorlon: especially since previous tex versions all looked very ugly
20:06:09 <vorlon> tmancill: wanna learn inkscape and own this action? :)
20:06:28 <harmoney> tmancill: I'm also happy with copy-editing if you need help in that regard. :)
20:06:46 <tmancill> harmoney vorlon: I'm willing to take a shot at it, but be warned that aesthetics and layout aren't strong suites of mine
20:06:58 * nattie is also happy to help with copy-editing the sponsorship brochure and/or the final report
20:07:01 <harmoney> tmancill: I can help!
20:07:02 <moray> tmancill: well, the layout is already there
20:07:07 <vorlon> (fwiw half the inkscape board is in Portland... I could probably hit them up for one-on-one mentoring if it came down to it ;)
20:07:13 <moray> tmancill: basically the key is just to change as little as possible
20:07:20 <tmancill> sounds good!  :)
20:07:27 <harmoney> (Tutoring come with beer?)
20:07:35 <vorlon> tmancill: hopefully the previous-year brochures give you a good framework, and it's mostly a copy refresh, yeah :-)
20:07:48 <vorlon> tmancill: thanks.  If you find yourself getting stuck, please raise the flag
20:07:53 <tmancill> Will do.
20:07:56 <moray> it's developed over several years, so one individual person's improvements is quite likely to just mean we're reverting to a previous version that others didn't like :)
20:08:13 <vorlon> #action tmancill to provide an updated sponsorship brochure based on the one from DC12, due Oct 31
20:08:37 <vorlon> that leaves the question of the budget
20:08:46 <vorlon> is this a prereq for the sponsorship drive?
20:08:53 <moray> not really
20:08:56 <vorlon> ok
20:08:58 <moray> clever sponsors might ask about it
20:09:01 <vorlon> then I suggest we table this for now
20:09:02 <moray> but most won't
20:09:05 <bgupta> Not a prereq, but we'd want to know our targets pretty soon
20:09:10 <moray> at most they'll ask about previous years
20:09:18 <moray> bgupta: right, that's a different angle on it
20:09:19 <harmoney> Can we set a deadline for creating the budget?
20:09:26 <vorlon> we already have solid numbers for the venue/accom/food
20:09:35 <moray> bgupta: but of course initially the target is just "as much as possible"
20:09:42 <vorlon> so I think we want to kick this particular can down the road
20:09:51 <moray> right
20:09:56 <harmoney> Can we set a deadline for creating the budget?
20:10:05 <moray> at this stage we're not going to raise so much soon that there is a point in knowing "that is enough"
20:10:12 <bgupta> moray: Sure, but it will be useful to know come late November how much to kill ourselves before year end.
20:10:18 <harmoney> Even if budget deadline is something like 31 January, can we set a deadline?
20:10:40 <rafw> I think we shoud have a strong budget by the end of November.
20:10:41 <vorlon> hug has mentioned he's willing to help with the budget angle
20:10:49 <vorlon> so I can take an action to work with him on nailing down numbers
20:10:54 <vorlon> is end of November good for everyone?
20:10:56 <bgupta> How about first draft budget by a month from now?
20:11:01 <moray> harmoney: I would suggest creating a rough budget soon with the known parts and publishing that
20:11:10 <harmoney> rafw: +1 So, budget setting deadline of 30 Nov?
20:11:11 <moray> harmoney: then setting a second deadline to firm it up
20:11:24 <nattie> agree
20:11:27 <moray> which might only be once we know how previous sponsors are going, etc.
20:11:29 <vorlon> #action vorlon to work with hug to get a first draft budget done ASAP
20:11:38 <nattie> #agreed budget to be set by 30 November
20:11:39 <vorlon> #action vorlon to work with hug to get a firmed-up budget by 30 Nov
20:11:43 <harmoney> Hurray!
20:11:44 <vorlon> ok?
20:11:47 <nattie> *nods*
20:11:50 <rafw> ok
20:11:56 <nattie> can we interpolate something about the final report?
20:12:09 <vorlon> #topic DC13 final report
20:12:16 <moray> harmoney: note that the budget draft should be signed off at a project level before we start spending the money, though this isn't really a difficult process
20:12:19 <vorlon> yes let's :)
20:12:54 <vorlon> so as harmoney said on the mailing list, she and I are more than happy to act as copy editors for the final report, we would just need folks to send us facts
20:13:15 <vorlon> unfortunately, the announcement got a lot of feedback from folks who seem to have ignored the bit about how the final report is actually structured
20:13:22 <moray> yes
20:13:31 <vorlon> so I'm ignoring them all ;)
20:13:32 <moray> random extra attendee impressions aren't that helpful
20:13:37 <moray> we have plenty of those from blogs before
20:13:42 <rafw> I am trying to organise a local event to work on this report.
20:13:54 <rafw> But I didn't get reply so far.
20:14:01 <vorlon> rafw: right, thanks for doing that
20:14:06 <rafw> welcome
20:14:09 <moray> normally the bottlenecks are around the budget/numbers parts
20:14:10 <vorlon> our offer still stands, in any case
20:14:32 <rafw> vorlon: thanks, this would help once we have a draft.
20:14:33 <moray> the rest can be made up by anyone who's been at a debconf and seen some photos from the year in question
20:14:36 <harmoney> I figured I could combine impressions from those who responded and make some cohesive "Attendee Impressions" post.
20:14:41 <nattie> rafw: in fairness, Kevin did say that was a good idea
20:14:47 <bgupta> should probably ask hug to do the budget section
20:14:58 <moray> harmoney: there's already a list of blog posts with some highlighted for inclusion
20:15:00 <vorlon> moray: right, that was mostly what I was trying to get with our offer for assistance
20:15:13 <harmoney> moray: Nevermind, then! You guys are right, all's useless. ;D
20:15:14 <vorlon> people who were on the teams, send us the facts and we'll massage them into text
20:15:41 <moray> vorlon: right, the bottlenecks is usually getting that data though, not trouble in writing
20:15:50 <vorlon> hmm, well
20:15:54 <moray> anyway, I'm just pointing to those sections as ones to hassle people about
20:15:55 <vorlon> how do we address this?
20:16:12 <moray> where there are a limited number of people who will have the data needed
20:16:19 <vorlon> right
20:16:36 <vorlon> so the people to be hassled aren't here right now
20:16:43 <moray> indeed
20:16:45 <vorlon> unless we want to hassle harmoney and nattie about registration :)
20:16:49 <harmoney> Except rafw, who is my new favorite.
20:16:54 <moray> rafw might have some of the data, yes
20:16:59 <moray> or be able to hassle others who do
20:17:30 <rafw> yep, will try my best to find people and data to write this report as soon as possible.
20:17:31 <vorlon> I think maybe the best thing to do right now is that anyone who has some time to spare and willing to write some prose, claim a section on https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/FinalReport
20:17:35 <vorlon> and hassle in parallel
20:17:57 <moray> I can probably try to also write some bad versions of bits
20:18:07 <moray> to either be used or filled out/replaced
20:18:14 <vorlon> I did the bday party writeup already; I also started writing a few sentences on daytrip, so I can claim that one
20:18:25 <bgupta> who has the data for "DebConf13 in numbers"?
20:19:03 <nattie> someone with penta access
20:19:12 <nattie> we could ask hug for a lot of the numbers
20:19:21 <moray> is penta access needed?  those parts are probably in munin graphs
20:19:22 <rafw> I think we had some data during the closing ceremony.
20:19:36 <nattie> so we did
20:19:37 <moray> but normally there are some more accurate numbers locally that aren't in penta
20:19:50 <nattie> so it's gaudenz we want for that
20:20:03 <vorlon> looking at DC12, the kinds of numbers we include are: countries of origin, number of people registered/attending, DDs/DMs/contributors/otherwise involved, gender ratio
20:20:18 <harmoney> COuld we get the numbers from gunnar?
20:20:20 <nattie> and food preference, for some reason
20:20:26 <vorlon> this information is all out there, just needs someone to own it
20:20:34 <moray> right, not all of these are necessarily useful
20:20:36 <vorlon> anyway
20:20:45 <moray> but part of the goal is also just to produce a plausible-looking report with data
20:20:48 <vorlon> divide and conquer
20:20:57 <vorlon> who here can I sign up for what from https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/FinalReport ?
20:21:00 <vorlon> I'll take daytrip (next)
20:21:17 <vorlon> harmoney or nattie, maybe one of you wants to claim Registration from cate
20:21:23 <vorlon> ?
20:21:40 <bgupta> rafw: Are you still down for sponsors section? I can help with that if you want.
20:21:45 <harmoney> vorlon: i'm not sure we have the details for Registration.
20:21:48 <vorlon> rafw: you're marked down for 'sponsors' which seems logical
20:21:52 <vorlon> harmoney: doesn't matter
20:22:01 <vorlon> someone needs to own these sections
20:22:02 <vorlon> and drive them
20:22:03 <rafw> bgupta: i didn't start. I will send you a draft soon, ok ?
20:22:10 <bgupta> Sure..
20:22:15 <vorlon> because it's not getting done on its own
20:22:46 <rafw> i will ask hug to claim budget in private.
20:22:56 <harmoney> nattie: You up to helping me with that section? Part of it will involve cornering cate.
20:23:07 <nattie> i can help with that, harmoney
20:23:18 <vorlon> moray: are you willing to take a section?
20:24:13 <moray> vorlon: yes, I was just a bit cautious about writing my name on the wiki with my current scheduling
20:24:35 <moray> maybe I should finish the impressions bit unless someone else will
20:24:47 <moray> then I can just write some version for a couple of others that haven't been done by then
20:25:05 <vorlon> moray: sounds good - I'm putting your name in the wiki ;)
20:25:32 <vorlon> thanks for volunteering, everyone ;-)
20:25:49 <moray> the key is just to remember your best high school article style
20:25:54 <vorlon> ok - anything else to discuss, or shall we adjourn?
20:26:07 <nattie> i think we're good for the moment
20:26:10 <moray> (the articles aren't really meant to be interesting articles ;)
20:26:22 <nattie> now to await the shouts of protest about the dates ;)
20:26:53 <moray> vorlon: since I missed the start, I just wanted to repeat that I favour the shortened timeframe
20:27:10 <nattie> are we done?
20:27:18 * nattie prepares to do the finger thing
20:27:27 <vorlon> moray: sorry, define "shortened" - you mean compressing DebCamp+DebConf into < 2weeks?
20:27:52 <moray> vorlon: I was very happy with the "week" extending into two weekends idea
20:27:57 <vorlon> ok
20:28:01 <nattie> are we done?
20:28:14 <vorlon> so I think that's approximately what we wound up with - glad you (approximately) approve :)
20:28:18 <vorlon> I think we're done
20:28:21 <nattie> #endmeeting