I also have potential sponsors who are not sponsoring because the base price is too high. We are trying to offer anyone who sponsors with a note of CloudStack or CCC (with any type of sponsorship) equal visibility in the CCC track. The sponsor ends up just sponsoring ApacheCon, but we are going to make them feel like they are sponsoring the CCC event.
This is the best I could come up with for our sponsors given the sponsorship format. On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de > wrote: > Unfortunately, I have some additional info I think could be interesting > for others. > > As far as I understood it, it was planned that the sub-events allow more > fine-grained sponsoring. > > I already had two companies that were generally willing to sponsor the > FlexJS summit. > > Unfortunately, the LF doesn’t want to allow this type of sponsoring. > > One of the companies already said, they would not sponsor ApacheCon in > total. For them the Price tag is too high for an undirected sponsorship. I > don’t know if the other will still be a sponsor, but I guess having the > micro-summit as test-balloon for getting more sponsors won’t work that way > :-( > > I still hope others can get some additional sponsors on board. > > Chris > > > > > Am 31.01.17, 14:27 schrieb "Rich Bowen" <rbo...@rcbowen.com>: > > On Jan 30, 2017 19:08, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > Hi! > > I don't think this question has come up on this thread yet, so here it > is: > what are our thinking about sponsorship? Right now we have two separate > sponsorship buckets: Bigdata and Core. Do we plan to keep it that way? > > Suppose there's somebody interested in sponsoring Apache XXX (where > XXX != Bigdata). Do we make them sponsor Core for now? > > > Sponsorship is actually something which is decided and managed by the > producer, not by us. So, probably best not to speculate about > something we > don't decide. > > >
