Yao Wei,
> We can further crank down the estimation down to 320.
I am now confused why you have done this. I was not asking you to
adjust the estimation and all the questions I previously had about
the estimation of 400 naturally still apply to this new number.
I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer in my previous
emails but if you'll permit me to be blunt for a moment, please
provide me with:
a) An upper-bound estimate for the number of attendees.
b) Reasons/justifications for "a)". I am looking for a *lot* more
than "agreed in IRC" -- I need to know _whatever_ thought process,
rationale or justifications went into this number. Please be as
detailed as possible.
c) Lower-bound estiamte for the number of attendees.
d) Reasons/justifications for "c)". Again, I need to know why this
number was selected. Please be as detailed as possible.
> > simply adding people to this number won't make people magically
> > turn up.
[…]
> Though, we still hope to gather more local free software enthusiasts
> and contributors here.
Yes… but with the greatest of respect this appears to be close to
the wishful thinking category I was warning about. I *hope* more
local free software folks will turn too (!) but without any basis,
reason or strategy for finding them, you cannot add them to an
estimate. (Or, as I mentioned before, you must be explicit that you
are doing that.)
> > > However this list of budget overestimated the attendees paid by
> > > themselves (45% of attendees were used in estimation).
[…]
> The income from the attendees paying themselves was overestimated.
Is this referring to the *number* of attendees who are paying for
themselves, or the amount which *each* self-paying attendee?
Please let me know if you are having any specific difficulty
understanding my questions - you are clearly very busy and I would
hate to be using up time that could be spent on DC18-related
matters.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
