Flyer has been sent, via Dropbox small PDF for Quick viewing of some options. I did invite everyone to the File share so hopefully it has been received.
Inkscape files are large, x 3 Options. Regards Tammy On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Bernelle Verster <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Just a note on the dates below... (included in line) > (the rest I don't have strong enough opinions on to contribute, can > chat in the meeting) > > B > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Brian Gupta <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Bernelle Verster <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all > >> > >> Sorry for the late notice, tonight's meeting is again a general > discussion chat. > > > > I don't know if I'll be at meeting, so here are my (more than a) few > > cents. Go ahead and ping me in IRC, but there's at least 50% chance > > I'll be busy. > > > >> Things to note: > >> > >> * Daniel asks people to look at the governance proposals [1] and [2] > >> and comment / discuss what they would like to have as "governance" > >> going into 2016. > > > > Please note there was another alternative proposed, that has support. [1] > > > > That proposal, which I made, was to use the text of the original > > DebConf delegation from 2011 [2]. > > > > Although it's a huge challenge to find people committed enough to > > stick with DebConf year after year, and there may if been some rough > > edges in the most recent "teams" implementation, I came to strongly > > believe in what the former chairs were trying to do. They were trying > > to build a sustainable organization that would live on after a single > > DebConf, that learned from experiences and builds upon them, while > > still leaving room for innovation. > > > > The idea of long running subteams makes sense, particularly in the > > fundraising area, where we have recurring long term contact with a > > subset of our sponsors. (How the subteams are structured is an > > implementation detail, so I'm not set on the lead/shadows/mentors > > formal structure). > > > > Taking a step back and looking at the conflict between local-team and > > global-team. It's not inevitable. What we should be striving to do, is > > to have each bid/bid-team set the major expectations, and have the > > committee evaluate not just the team, but also the bid. If the bid > > team sets the expectations properly and the committee selects the bid, > > that agreement should be considered akin to a contract between local > > and global, in that it sets expectations for the following 18 months. > > > > The selection committee should not select a bid that has something in > > it they won't be able to support after the selection is made, even if > > it means delaying the selection process, and even opening it up for > > additional bids. The bid team should make clear in their bid, how open > > they are to working with the global team. If a bid is selected and > > their is a disagreement down the road, people should take a breather > > and see what the initial expectations were. > > > > We really need to strive for both a stong local and strong global > > teams, so we can have a > > > >> * The website is coming along well - is the current one on wafer > already? [3] > >> There is talk of a sprint in January, which may involve flying people > >> to Cape Town. Stefano knows more here, we should discuss the options. > > > > Is this for just DC16, or would this work be applied to future > > DebConfs? Also how much budget are we discussing? My quick thoughts > > are that a sprint could be justified, if it's not one-off work, in > > that it won't be leveraged for future DebConfs, and/or the budget > > being requested isn't very large. IE: If we are thinking wafer has a > > good shot at being the new summit/web/everything for DC16+, and it's > > not a large monetary amount, then this makes sense. > > > >> * I'm still waiting on a flyer draft. > >> > >> * For fundraising, we should also discuss and agree on whether we want > >> to send the swag to sponsors again. DC15 had a hiccup here, but DC13 > >> and DC14 did send swag to sponsors. And whatever we decide we can then > >> tell sponsors consistently and early if they ask. Daniel's opinion is > >> that there are very valid reasons to at least send bags and shirts, > >> but feel more ambivalent about sending swag from other vendors. > >> And to note: Michael (azeem) suggested we should have a more organized > >> push to debrief DC15 sponsors, and asking them about whether they > >> appreciated and/or in future want the sponsor bag would be one. DC16 > >> can also add their thoughts here. > > > > 1) Some reading [2] on fundraising suggests that surprise gifts to > > donors can be effective, but if it seems like the donor is "buying" > > the gift, it can be instead be counterproductive. It clearly strongly > > discourages promising the gift as a reward for donation. (Bear in mind > > donors motivations are somewhat different than sponsors.) > > 2) For sponsors at silver+ I feel it is useful to show how their logos > > were featured > > 3) For sponsors below silver, I think it might be useful to show how > > their logos could have been featured if they were silver+? > > 4) Nice to give shirts to our sponsors who couldn't attend (I know > > when my company was sponsoring and I couldn't attend, the shirts were > > appreciated.) Probably this only applies to sponsors that are true > > fans of Debian. > > 5) Swag from other sponsors, I don't have a strong opinion. I > > certainly don't think it would be ideal to send only swag from other > > sponsors and no shirts. Putting my sponsor hat on, I think it's useful > > to know what other sponsors are giving, so I can get a sense of what's > > allowed/expected, but I wouldn't miss it if it weren't sent. Overall > > it will likely influence sponsors to be more likely to provide swag, > > which has it's own pros and cons. > > > >> * I've forwarded an email from the accommodation people. I think we > >> should announce the dates. > > > > If there is realistically no chance of dates changing, that sounds great. > > The (low) probability is that we don't have accommodation sorted. Then > we need to decide if we move the venue, which could mean changing the > dates. But anything else, like finding alternative accommodation, > would probably still stick to those dates. > > The venue is booked, and has infrastructure largely sorted already, > and the dates can't be changed (much) because of the university > vacation which allows our access to the venue. So I think, announce > the dates, and bust ass to get the accommodation we want, which, > really, is largely sorted, it's just the paperwork. > > > > Cheers, > > Brian > > > > [1] - > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13308.html > > [2] - > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00005.html > > [3] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/08/08/donor-gifts/ > _______________________________________________ > Debconf-team mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team > -- MUNGO JOE Tammy 082 674 9764
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
