18:05:24 <gaudenz> #startmeeting 18:05:24 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Jun 4 18:05:24 2013 UTC. The chair is gaudenz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:05:24 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:05:29 <gaudenz> #chair gwolf 18:05:29 <MeetBot> Current chairs: gaudenz gwolf 18:05:35 <gaudenz> #topic agenda items 18:05:56 <gaudenz> * talk submission deadline 18:06:15 <gaudenz> * sponsored accomodation upgrades 18:06:27 * gwolf pastes into the wiki (for completeness) 18:06:32 <gaudenz> * le camp contact persons 18:06:46 <gaudenz> * debcamp 18:07:26 <gaudenz> * reconfirmation period 18:08:23 <gaudenz> * t-shirts 18:08:35 <gaudenz> any other things we should discuss? 18:08:41 <gwolf> Maybe herb@ status report? 18:08:54 <gaudenz> * bursaries team 18:09:02 <gwolf> (although those of us here seem to be those already in the know) 18:09:06 <vorlon> seems premature to actually report anything about herb :) 18:09:07 * gaudenz suggests to finally drop the herb term 18:09:24 <gismo> gaudenz: DebianDay status? 18:09:35 <gaudenz> * DebianDay 18:09:38 <vorlon> given that there's been procedural discussion for bursaries, is it useful to bring that discussion to this meeting? 18:09:52 <vorlon> or should we carry on with the mail discussion for that? 18:10:07 <gaudenz> vorlon: I'd prefer that to go to the list first, without a proposal discussion on IRC is rather tedious. 18:10:13 <gwolf> vorlon: I mentioned it for completeness sake. we can go for mail. 18:10:13 <vorlon> ack 18:10:16 <cate> vorlon: I think the team should decide the procedures 18:10:39 * gaudenz agrees with cate, but it should be on list, not in private 18:11:19 <gaudenz> #topic talk submission deadline 18:11:41 <vorlon> for my part, I think the CfP window was really quite narrow 18:11:43 <gaudenz> There was a proposal to extend the deadline, and people on IRC at that time mostly agreed 18:11:50 <OdyX> ^ I can have time tomorrow evening to handle that if there's agreement. 18:11:50 <vorlon> gwolf seemed to disagree 18:11:53 <gwolf> Right... I don't think there is much raeason to extend or not to extend 18:12:01 <gaudenz> But nobody did an announcement 18:12:09 <OdyX> .oO(Keeping an eye, but not really present) 18:12:17 <gwolf> vorlon: yes - Many years ago stockholm had made a very strong point about sticking to deadlines, and I bought it 18:12:26 <gaudenz> Does anyone have an overview of the number of talks and the "quality" of the submissions. 18:12:27 <gwolf> vorlon: in short... if there is no real reason to extend it, why should we? 18:12:30 <vorlon> gwolf: I think the window was too small, and AIUI anything submitted after the deadline is not guaranteed space at the conference - and if it gets space it might be not as good space 18:12:33 <gaudenz> Do we have enough talks for a fine conference? 18:12:39 <vorlon> gwolf: because I didn't get my talks in by the deadline, obviously 18:12:54 <vorlon> gwolf: "Make a deadline and stick with it" - fine, but then the deadlines have to be sane 18:13:00 <gwolf> vorlon: I think we should rather (but again, it won't happen for DC13) re-evaluate what does a "talks team" mean 18:13:11 <vorlon> a two-week window from the announcement to the deadline is not a reasonable amount of time 18:13:12 <gwolf> as I do not think there is such a big difference between "official" and "ad-hoc" 18:13:24 <gwolf> I won't over-argue about it, as I do not think it makes much difference 18:13:34 * gaudenz also thinks that it was rather short, and as far as I understand we are not under time pressure here. 18:13:41 <gwolf> but anyway, if we start moving *all* of our deadlines, then people won't take *any* of them seriously 18:13:56 <vorlon> we haven't moved any other deadlines 18:14:07 <gaudenz> Or we could even start to approve the really good talks. 18:14:10 <gwolf> sponsored registration (by four days) 18:14:20 <harmoney> gaudenz: I think the time pressure was on attendees waiting for sponsorship confirmation before submitting their proposals. 18:14:21 <vorlon> and again, the reason for moving the deadline is that I don't think it gave people a reasonable chance in the first place 18:14:46 <harmoney> What about instead of moving the deadline, we adjust the requirements? 18:14:49 <gwolf> harmoney: it's a vicious circle 18:15:00 <harmoney> So, you make a proposal, hand in a paper after your proposal has been accepted/denied? 18:15:13 <gwolf> some people will not request sponsorship if their talk is not accepted, some people will not present a talk if their sponsorship is not accepted 18:15:18 <gwolf> duno... 18:15:44 <gaudenz> I don't think we should interconnect talks and sponsorship. 18:15:47 <gwolf> harmoney: I'd love to have good papers for talks. It *should* be a requirement. But experience shows it is not usually so 18:16:00 <gaudenz> Most people also attend if their talk is not in the main track I guess. 18:16:01 <vorlon> well, it's already too late to request sponsorship if they haven't already 18:16:01 <harmoney> I think extending the deadline for the *papers*, but making it clear that the deadline is set for proposals should make it clear to honor the deadlines, but still have flexibility to work on the paper. 18:16:04 <gwolf> gaudenz: just looking at the numbers, I think we have enough talks for a fine conference. 18:16:20 <vorlon> harmoney: that's not the point I'm arguing, at all 18:16:25 <vorlon> I'm not submitting any papers 18:16:34 <vorlon> I have submitted a talk, and it was after the deadline 18:16:36 <gwolf> 68 events so far 18:16:45 <gwolf> that is close to 10 per day 18:16:46 <gaudenz> harmoney: AFAIK papers don't matter much already. 18:17:06 <gwolf> and we have not included the social and "de rigeur" (i.e. DPL talk, welcome, farewell...) 18:17:39 <vorlon> and I am arguing that penalizing people who submitted talks 2 days more than 2 weeks after the call for papers, by treating them as "adhoc" to be scheduled only during the conference, is not a reasonable policy 18:17:59 <gwolf> of course it's far less than what we had for any previous conference, but I would anyway expect some other 60 to arrive. 18:18:26 <moray> vorlon: definitely it would be silly to fill the schedule from talks before the previous deadline 18:18:52 <moray> but as already mentioned, there has previously been an idea that sponorship stuff should take talks into account 18:19:08 <gaudenz> I propose to extend the deadline to June 15th. In the meantime the talks team can still work on rating the talks already submitted. 18:19:11 <OdyX> IMHO we should communicate that "we still accept talk proposals and will confirm them on an ongoing basis, possibly in the conference track. No guarantee though" 18:19:22 <gwolf> gaudenz: s/still work/start working/ 18:19:35 <vorlon> moray: what does that mean? the sponsorship requests are all in, and we need to decide on travel sponsorship ASAP to be useful; I don't expect herb to wait on talk approvals 18:19:56 <gwolf> gaudenz: FWIW I will be pestering the talks team between now and Thursday. 18:20:19 <moray> vorlon: no, I'm commenting on why it happened that way rather than saying we can match it now... but still, the travel bursary team can look at the existing data, so there was some point in having a deadline before they looked 18:20:20 <vorlon> AFAICS, it's fine for herb to say "you're approved for travel sponsorship", the attendee waits to hear if their talk is approved to reconfirm attendance, and if their talk is rejected the sponsorship funds are released to the next person in line if necessary 18:20:31 <vorlon> moray: ok, that's fair 18:20:40 <vorlon> I think that's not a practical problem this year 18:20:55 <moray> I'm not sure of the point of another deadline in *only* 10 days 18:21:16 <moray> why 10 days rather than a month or two? 18:21:21 <vorlon> so back to your previous point, "it would be silly to fill the schedule from talks before the previous deadline" 18:21:33 <gaudenz> moray: because the conference starts in about 2 months? 18:21:38 * gwolf sighs 18:21:40 <vorlon> that's exactly what I'm concerned about happening, and what the current wording seems to encourage 18:21:57 <vorlon> so if that's not *actually* what's going to be done, then I can shut up and we can move on ;) 18:22:10 <moray> gaudenz: yes, and my point is that I don't think we need to set a deadline to stop accepting the last few talks until soon before it 18:22:31 <moray> gaudenz: clearly we should accept a first batch soon, but that doesn't mean we need to set the final deadline soon 18:23:05 <gaudenz> moray: As I understood it, there has never been a final deadline. It's about the distinction between official and "ad-hoc" talks. 18:23:20 <gaudenz> granted that distinction did not mean much in the past as far as i remember 18:23:29 <moray> it used to mean more a long time ago 18:23:34 <moray> but was kind of phased out over recent years 18:23:55 <moray> (and you used to need to provide a paper to be official, AFAICR) 18:24:46 <gwolf> gaudenz: and TBH there's also not a strong distinction between official and ad-hoc 18:24:53 <gaudenz> As an alternative I suggest to not extend the "deadline" and just announce that we still accept talks and that they will be scheduled as they come in. 18:24:54 <gwolf> only that the program is presented pre-filled 18:25:09 <gwolf> but if we were to publish the program today, the first ad-hoc talk could be scheduled today later 18:25:14 <gwolf> and it'd effectively be the same 18:25:16 <moray> gaudenz: yes, that would be nice, I think, if the talks team can manage to do that 18:25:27 <gaudenz> My concern is that those that submit a talk in the next days should not have to wait for 2 months to know if their talk is accepted. 18:25:33 <moray> gaudenz: right 18:25:44 <moray> gaudenz: ideally they should have some kind of exponential backoff from filling talk slots :) 18:26:20 <gaudenz> When do you usually start to schedule talks? 18:26:22 <moray> (not in time between approvals, but in only making sure some slots always remain available until the conference) 18:26:26 <gaudenz> (opposed to just accepting them) 18:26:37 <moray> gaudenz: soon before the conference. though some people complain about that 18:27:03 <moray> a *few* people want to know the schedule so they can attend specific events, though that's not really logical given they're also streamed etc. 18:27:07 <gaudenz> but that's good, because if interesting talks come in now, we can still schedule them appropriately 18:27:10 * h01ger blinks 18:27:12 <cate> BTW track "deadline" was more free, right? 18:27:14 <moray> the more complicated part is making sure that *speakers* are there 18:27:19 <moray> which is kind of useful :) 18:27:20 * gwolf blanks ___________________- 18:27:44 <gaudenz> Who can send an announcement, that talks submission is still possible? 18:28:02 <gaudenz> Maybe include a preliminary date on when we publish the first batch of accepted talks? 18:28:30 <gwolf> I'm overworked now and have to move to contact talks@ (same as the push I did for herb@) 18:28:36 <gwolf> so I'd rather not be the announcer 18:29:15 <gaudenz> OdyX: ? 18:29:17 <moray> gaudenz: should be someone in the talks team, so they can check re above points also 18:29:31 <gaudenz> gwolf: who else is on the talks team? 18:29:56 <gwolf> https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Teams#Talks_selection 18:30:10 <gwolf> tille, gwolf, tassia, tiago, dkg, marga 18:30:24 <gaudenz> gwolf: It seems you are the only one present 18:30:29 <gwolf> yes 18:30:34 <gaudenz> Can you find someone else? 18:30:41 * gwolf looks at gaudenz 18:30:46 <gwolf> I have found a volunteer! ;-) 18:30:55 <gwolf> gaudenz: really, if it falls on me, it will wait 18:30:59 <gwolf> not because I want to delay it 18:31:06 <gwolf> but because of many other things 18:31:25 <gaudenz> #agreed we announce that we still accept talks and schedule them on an ongoing basis. 18:31:43 <gaudenz> #action gaudenz to find a volunteer in the talks team to write this announcement. 18:32:01 <gaudenz> #topic sponsored accomodation upgrades 18:32:27 <gaudenz> We decided about this during the last meeting, but did not decide on who is going to do the work 18:32:40 <gaudenz> like contacting people, announcement, penta changes, ... 18:32:50 <gaudenz> We should find volunteers as this needs to be done soon IMO 18:32:52 <vorlon> I don't understand what the action there is 18:33:47 <gaudenz> vorlon: I mean people won't know about the upgrades if we just keep silent ;-) 18:34:18 <moray> gaudenz: it seems like this could go "agreed" list post -> web page -> announcement 18:34:26 <vorlon> but the bursaries team hasn't even gotten data yet on who's requested sponsorship, let alone approving / ranking them 18:34:26 <gaudenz> IMO this should be done by the registration team, but I don't know if they also see it this way as they did not respond to my queries. 18:34:27 <moray> rather than someone having to do everything in one step 18:34:39 <vorlon> so what is there to contact people about right now? 18:34:55 <gwolf> vorlon: the bursaries *do* have that information, and we have even started discussing about it 18:34:58 <gaudenz> moray: I don't think everything has to be done by a single volunteer. 18:35:07 <gwolf> (and I expect to tune in to the discusion / start rating today) 18:35:18 <moray> gwolf: I misread that as "start ranting" 18:35:28 <gwolf> moray: nah, that's already a done deal ;-) 18:35:37 <vorlon> gwolf: um? See my mail; the bursaries only have the list of people requesting travel sponsorship 18:35:38 <gaudenz> vorlon: my assumption is that rejecting an accomodation sponsorship request is only done in exceptional circumstances 18:35:39 <gwolf> oh... and I correct myself 18:35:41 <gwolf> vorlon: sorry 18:35:45 <vorlon> ok :) 18:35:46 <gwolf> vorlon: I skipped some lines 18:35:52 <gwolf> mea culpa mea culpa 18:36:34 <gaudenz> So I don't think we should wait for the bursaries team. But if other think we should wait, fine. 18:36:47 <moray> I'm not sure we need to wait, no 18:37:03 <cate> But we cannot offer upgrade if people don't know if they were sponsored 18:37:06 <moray> if someone is *not* approved, we would just need to un-reserve the upgrade space 18:37:12 <vorlon> I think the person who is the exception will get really pissed if we lead them to believe (based on our announcement) that they are sponsored, makes plans, books tickets and is then told they're not sponsored at all 18:37:15 <moray> and/or ask them to instead pay a higher thing 18:37:32 <vorlon> well, maybe not all that pissed 18:37:35 <vorlon> as I guess the price difference isn't great 18:37:38 <moray> vorlon: ah, but you can word the announcement sensibly to avoid that 18:37:46 <moray> (well volunteered) 18:37:49 <vorlon> sigh 18:37:54 <vorlon> harmoney: you get to help 18:38:09 * gwolf feels signs of gender violence in Oregon... 18:38:43 <gaudenz> cate: Do you think the registration team can start working on this in the next days? 18:38:48 <gaudenz> Or do you need help? 18:39:04 <harmoney> vorlon: Sorry - at work. What am I helping with? 18:39:08 <gaudenz> If you need help, I can do something in the next 2 days, after that I'm mostly VAC 18:39:09 <vorlon> ok, so the action there for me is: draft an announcement to let attendees know about the sponsorship upgrade option? 18:39:11 <moray> gwolf: is fooling a partner into helping organise a conference grounds classed as domestic violence in Oregan? 18:39:12 <vorlon> harmoney: ^^ 18:39:17 <moray> s/grounds// 18:39:21 <cate> gaudenz: I need help. I'll go offline next week, so ... 18:39:35 <cate> [in few days for 10 days] 18:39:44 <vorlon> who should I work with for fact checking of the announcement details? 18:39:44 <gaudenz> vorlon: The decision was to first let those that said no to communal choose. 18:39:47 <harmoney> moray: Our yard is large enough they'll never find the body. 18:39:58 <vorlon> gaudenz: ok. Who will drive this? 18:40:00 <gaudenz> vorlon: registration team 18:40:11 <vorlon> harmoney: don't be silly, the gophers would unearth me within the week 18:40:15 <cate> and I wanted to help hug about self-paid accommodation, so that he can start sending invoices 18:40:16 <gaudenz> vorlon: I can produce the list of email, but someone has to write the text 18:40:23 <vorlon> gaudenz: ok 18:40:38 <moray> vorlon: I suggest posting a draft to the list for people to jump in if you're unsure (but not if you are sure already by then) 18:40:43 <vorlon> #action vorlon to draft mail to be sent to "not communal" sponsored attendees about upgrade option 18:40:46 <gaudenz> #action vorlon to help drafting text for the sponsored accomodation upgrades 18:41:01 <gaudenz> #action gaudenz to produce lists for the registration team 18:41:01 <vorlon> #action gaudenz to provide list of "not communal" sponsored attendees to be mailed 18:41:05 <vorlon> :-) 18:41:12 <gaudenz> vorlon: we are in sync 18:41:20 <vorlon> but meetbot isn't! 18:41:21 <gaudenz> ok next topic 18:41:39 <gaudenz> #topic * le camp contact persons 18:42:00 <gaudenz> harmoney: it seems you wanted to volunteer? 18:42:35 <vorlon> in the context of being a contact person? 18:42:39 <harmoney> gaudenz: It depends on language barrier issues. 18:42:54 <harmoney> Like I said, my French is ... pretty tragic. 18:42:54 * gwolf is back after some users bursted into his office with questions... 18:42:55 <gwolf> :-/ 18:42:56 <gaudenz> harmoney: what languages are you comfortable? 18:43:14 <vorlon> harmoney: ton français est sans défaut 18:43:16 <harmoney> gaudenz: English. Apparently I can Spanish, though, when forced to attempt French. 18:43:36 <moray> vorlon: not sans merci? 18:43:42 <cate> vorlon: aussi ton français ;-) 18:43:43 <OdyX> #save 18:43:44 <harmoney> gaudenz: The more French I learn, the better my Spanish gets. 18:43:53 <gaudenz> harmoney: Maybe it's easier if you help in the registration team, they have their own channel #debconf-registration 18:43:59 <vorlon> (I'm sure that after a week in Le Camp, her Romansch will be impeccable) 18:44:03 <gaudenz> And we find someone else as a contact person 18:44:10 <OdyX> I volunteer for whatever point of contact task. 18:44:11 <harmoney> gaudenz: Sounds good to me. 18:44:30 <gaudenz> OdyX: Do you want to get involved into registration things? 18:44:45 <gaudenz> If yes it would be nice to have you as a contact for accomodation (and maybe food) 18:44:57 <gaudenz> I could do the infrastructure part then 18:45:01 <OdyX> yeah, sure. I can do whatever contact point. :) 18:45:30 <gaudenz> OdyX: you beeing the contact point for accomodation only makes sense if you also are in the registration team on our side IMO. 18:46:18 <gaudenz> #agreed OdyX is contact person for accomodation and food 18:46:32 <OdyX> I'm not (yet) in registration@ 18:46:38 <gaudenz> #agreed gaudenz for infrastructure (talk rooms etc.) 18:46:46 <gaudenz> OdyX: write to Ganneff 18:47:03 <gaudenz> #topic debcamp 18:47:09 <gaudenz> hug around? 18:47:12 <OdyX> gaudenz: I'm not sure it matters for $now 18:47:26 <gaudenz> OdyX: I think it does. 18:47:33 <gaudenz> but the topic is over 18:47:42 <OdyX> ack 18:47:51 <gaudenz> We are about to sign a contract for Tuesday to Saturday for a DebCamp 18:48:04 <gaudenz> There was no opposition on list, so I think we can go forward. 18:48:27 <gaudenz> Maybe hug even already sent it to Le Camp, don't know, but my signature is already on it. 18:48:50 <gwolf> gaudenz: /me cheers for it 18:49:01 <OdyX> hug, cate: signed answer to board@ would be formally good. Asked kevinmoilar on a different channel. 18:49:16 <gaudenz> #action hug to sign the le camp contract 18:49:25 <cate> OdyX: I'll do 18:49:45 <gaudenz> Yeah and as OdyX mentioned formal decision of the association board to sign is in progress. 18:50:09 <gaudenz> #topic reconfirmation period 18:50:13 <OdyX> (no-risk process, but still good to get formally right) 18:50:22 <gaudenz> I think we should plan when to have reconfirmation. 18:50:41 <gaudenz> My suggestion is to have the deadline somewhen in early july 18:50:41 <moray> before we need to do t-shirts etc. 18:50:48 <moray> so possibly even earlier 18:50:57 <gaudenz> Would 1st of July work? 18:51:06 <gwolf> I think jul1 would work 18:51:15 <gwolf> Of course, we need to publish the results of travel sponsorship requests 18:51:23 <gaudenz> ie do we have all the talk and sponsorship decisions done by about 20th June? 18:51:26 <gwolf> and if possible, room assignments (as it might be important for some people) 18:51:33 <gwolf> I expect so. 18:51:38 <cate> 10 days to reconfirm? 18:51:43 <harmoney> gwolf: Any idea when travel sponsorship and other sponsorship statuses will be available? 18:51:48 <moray> sounds reasonable as a plan 18:51:53 <gaudenz> gwolf: I don't think we need room assignment, but we have to confirm the room category. 18:52:04 <gaudenz> but we should do that even earlier. 18:52:11 <gwolf> harmoney: Lets get to that point, but I fully expect travel sponsorship to be quite trivial to get done 18:52:14 <moray> cate: you may be implying that it's not enough for some people -- probably true, but I think we can have exceptions if people have a really good excuse 18:52:15 <gwolf> in less than a week 18:52:40 <gaudenz> plan to open reconfirmation on 15th and close on 30th of June? 18:53:01 <vorlon> reconfirmation should certainly be after sponsorship is settled, IMHO 18:53:06 <cate> gaudenz: I dohn't think herb will be ready by 15th 18:53:13 <vorlon> I think we should be ready by the 15th 18:53:16 <moray> vorlon: yes ... and after the upgrades thing has time 18:53:22 <vorlon> if we can get past the procedural arguments :) 18:53:30 <gaudenz> vorlon: I think it's ok if the decision is made shortly after opening reconfirmation. 18:53:37 <vorlon> gaudenz: sure 18:53:50 <gaudenz> But we can also shorten the period if that sounds better. I don't care much. 18:53:53 <gwolf> cate: I think we (herb) can be ready for the 15th 18:54:00 <gaudenz> I mostly care about the 30th June date. 18:54:11 <gwolf> cate: this years' herb seems to be easy to get right 18:54:25 <harmoney> 30th June should be plenty of time for reconfirmation; will that give enough time for conference prep? 18:54:26 <cate> gwolf: so ok 18:54:39 <OdyX> IMHO we should get past procedural arguments by not changing the last year's process (too much) 18:54:42 <harmoney> That leaves about 5 weeks before DebCamp, right? 18:54:46 <gaudenz> harmoney: I think earlier is not possible, so it has to. 18:55:05 <gaudenz> OdyX: wrong topic 18:55:08 <cate> harmoney: we have anyway most of the informations ready 18:55:23 <cate> and in any case few people will change plan also after reconfirmation 18:55:26 <gaudenz> I think we agree on 15th to 30th, right? 18:55:37 <moray> right, I only worry about lead-times on things like t-shirts, but the proposed dates should be fine indeed 18:55:46 <harmoney> gaudenz: Agreed. 18:55:53 <gaudenz> #agreed reconfirmation period from 15th June to 30th June. 18:56:05 <gaudenz> Who will prepare the announcement about that? 18:56:14 <moray> (and we can always use the dodgy Bosnian printer who did things very quickly, I guess ;) 18:56:15 <gaudenz> Best to find a volunteer now ;-) 18:56:41 <cate> last year I did it (it is done with darst scripts), but I'm on vacation so .. 18:56:51 * gaudenz will be VAC in that period, so don't look at me. 18:57:42 <harmoney> You just need an announcement about reconfirmation? 18:58:00 <moray> harmoney: I think the task is mostly remembering to send it (and reminders) at the right time 18:58:07 <gaudenz> I think previously people got a personalized mail 18:58:14 <moray> ah, that's important indeed 18:58:20 <harmoney> I can help prep it, but I can only send to debconf-announce and team. I'll need someone else to send it to dda 18:58:21 <gaudenz> but cate knows better 18:58:22 <moray> there should be a general announcement of the deadline 18:58:31 <moray> but also people need to be told what penta thinks their status is 18:58:36 <moray> multiple times, if problems are found 18:58:41 <harmoney> Oh, I do not volunteer, then. 18:58:54 <cate> I think a generic mail, but only on people who set "attend". Later mails was personalized 18:58:55 <moray> this is registration team stuff of some kind 18:59:18 <cate> The "reconfirmation is open" don't need to be personalized 18:59:19 <moray> harmoney: can you poke the rest of registration team to start looking at what exciting bugs we have in this year's data, and thus what emails need to be sent? 18:59:24 <gaudenz> harmoney: I think a general mail at the start of the period is fine, can you do that? 18:59:37 <harmoney> gaudenz: I can do that! 19:00:03 <harmoney> moray: Sure. 19:00:14 <gaudenz> #action harmoney to prepare the first annoucment about reconfirmation and to poke the reg team to find all the bugs 19:00:17 <moray> ok, looks like both parts are covered (from the perspective of the current meeting), then :) 19:00:20 <harmoney> gaudenz: Does registration-team just have the IRC channel, or do we also have a mailing lits? 19:00:31 <moray> there is an alias 19:00:36 <moray> I don't know if it goes to the right people yet 19:00:37 <gaudenz> harmoney: afaik there is an alias, poke Ganneff to add you 19:00:49 <cate> harmoney: there is registration@debconf.org 19:00:56 <gwolf> harmoney: s/Ganneff/admin@debconf.org/ 19:00:59 <gaudenz> #topic t-shirts 19:01:10 <harmoney> Ganneff: Please to be adding me to the debconf regstration list: registration@debconf.org 19:01:11 <gwolf> harmoney: it will be easier, and that gets the non-ganneffy admins as well ;-) 19:01:12 <cate> and because we don't heve the ticked system, you can use it as mailing list ;-) 19:01:17 <gaudenz> We have budgeted CHF 8.- per shirt, so no way to produce them in CH 19:01:20 <gwolf> harmoney: Ganneff is currently on vacation 19:01:28 <harmoney> Stupid vacation. 19:01:32 <gaudenz> Who has contacts to producers and could ask for offers? 19:01:35 * gwolf has 19:01:38 <moray> our best cheap ones were previously from our Mexico t-shirt dealers 19:01:46 <gwolf> As we have printed here and shipped 19:01:54 <moray> Bosnia was also cheap, but not great printing 19:01:59 <gwolf> ...I *think* we could get the Bosnian guys to ask 19:02:11 <nattie> might as well get a comparison of offers 19:02:12 <gwolf> moray: that's somewhat because it was in the end a rush job 19:02:24 <gaudenz> gwolf: Can you ask the mexican company? 19:02:27 <nattie> shipping from bosnia would presumably be a little cheaper 19:02:34 <nattie> (apart from bribes to the post office, of course) 19:02:42 <gwolf> moray: But if we got them to ask with time and without nema-problemas, I think the shipping will make a sizeable difference 19:02:46 <moray> gwolf: yeah, though there were other related issues; I agree all *could* have been from the rush 19:02:48 <gwolf> gaudenz: surely 19:03:10 * gaudenz is not sure if shipping from bosnia or mexico makes a difference, both seem like a hassle. 19:03:20 <moray> nattie: possibly even someone bringing them from Bosnia would be cheaper than sending from Mexico 19:03:33 <nattie> moray: very true 19:03:34 <gwolf> gaudenz: one of them is ~8000Km closer... and cna be shipped by land 19:03:35 <moray> gaudenz: we managed international shipping for printing several times before 19:03:58 <moray> gaudenz: and it makes a big difference compared to normal European prices, let alone Swiss ones :) 19:03:59 <gaudenz> moray: Yeah I guess it's doable, just there are uncertainities... 19:04:10 <gwolf> anyway - I'll ask for prices for ~400 shirts, on three different cloth colors, printed with three "inks" on the front and one in the back 19:04:11 <moray> gaudenz: right -- thus the need to start on this topic soon 19:04:13 <gismo> gaudenz: we should also check with formorer, IIRC he offered to produce them in the past 19:04:16 <gwolf> right? 19:04:31 <gaudenz> gismo: can you ask him? 19:04:49 <gismo> gaudenz: ACK 19:04:49 <gwolf> #info We should seek prices on shirts printing+shipping for approximately ~400 shirts, on three different cloth colors, printed with three "inks" on the front and one in the back 19:04:52 <nattie> german-produced t-shirts i suspect would be relatively expensive, compared to bosnian or mexican ones 19:04:53 <gaudenz> #action gwolf to get a quote from the mexican producer for 400 t-shirts in 3 colors 19:05:00 <gwolf> #info Offers sought from any suitable country ;-) 19:05:01 <moray> maybe we can fool Lunacy into checking for a quote in Bosnia 19:05:13 <gaudenz> #action gismo to ask formorer for t-shirt offers 19:05:20 <nattie> moray: it would be handy - she presumably still has the contact details from last time 19:05:22 <moray> (even if it seems she missed the dc13 deadline...) 19:05:27 <gaudenz> Who has contacts to the bosnians? 19:05:48 <gaudenz> moray: can you ask her? 19:05:55 <moray> gaudenz: I guess that would be me. I could also ask Zlatan, but he's perhaps less reliable as a contact 19:06:10 <gaudenz> #action moray to get quotes from the bosnians 19:06:13 <gaudenz> #save 19:06:14 <nattie> i think Lunacy would be the person to ask as she dealt with t-shirts last time 19:06:23 <nattie> sorry, last-but-one time 19:06:39 <gwolf> maybe also getting the contact from Nicaragua? 19:06:44 <gwolf> (or was that govt-printed?) 19:06:51 <gwolf> n0rman: ping? 19:06:54 <gwolf> n0rman: ↑ 19:07:05 <gaudenz> #topic DebianDay 19:07:16 <gaudenz> gismo: Do you know more? 19:07:17 <gismo> <https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/DebianDay> 19:08:07 <gismo> rafw is in contact with the HES-SO Arc, they seem quite positive even if there are still open questions (location price and big auditorium) 19:08:12 <gaudenz> gismo: this would be on the arrival day? 19:08:21 <gismo> the major advantage is that it is next to the rail station 19:08:47 <gismo> gaudenz: IIRC it was decided for 2013-08-10, I lost track of which day it is 19:09:02 <gaudenz> gismo: what made you drop the debian anniversary date? 19:09:35 <gismo> gaudenz: ? 19:09:36 <moray> right, there was a previous "agreement" to do it on the Debian anniversary 19:09:51 <gaudenz> looking at the current time, I propose to move this to the list. 19:10:09 <gismo> I forgot that 19:10:14 <gaudenz> gismo: can you write a proposal to the list together with rafw? 19:10:21 <gwolf> yes, I also expected debianday to be on the same date as the debparty 19:10:22 <gismo> (Debian anniversary) 19:10:43 <gismo> gaudenz: fine, for this week-end at last 19:11:02 <gaudenz> #action gismo and rafw to send their proposal about debian day to the list 19:11:14 <gaudenz> gismo, rafw many thanks for working on this!! 19:11:38 <gaudenz> I think it's important that we do it, and we are already rather late... 19:11:59 <gaudenz> So really thanks, because otherwise we would have just forgotten about it. 19:12:10 <gaudenz> #topic bursary team 19:12:22 <gaudenz> Anything that needs to be discussed about this? 19:12:51 <gwolf> Well... I'd just like to inform to the non-bursaries here on the status 19:13:02 <gaudenz> gwolf: sure, go on 19:13:03 <gwolf> we are arguing (and we should keep doing so ;-) ) on several topics 19:13:34 <gwolf> ...But I *think* we can basically grant 100% of the requested sponsorship (the requested amount is less than what the budget says) 19:13:41 <gwolf> of course, we should not blindly grant the money 19:14:07 <gwolf> but that's part of the reason I expect the process to be swiftish (and why I insisted on cate that we could finish in <10 days) 19:14:26 <moray> right, it's easier to filter out a few cases than to rank everyone 19:14:31 <gwolf> There is a (small) heap of mails I have not yet gone through, but I am optimistic about it 19:14:48 <gwolf> so... that's it for me, I don't know if others have anything to add to the meeting about this 19:15:19 <cate> yes, the food+accommodation is quick to do. There is usually few bad guys and few problematic cases 19:15:21 <gaudenz> The basic question where we don't agree yet is if we should keep the two dimensional rating of the past or do a condorcet voteing on the requests 19:15:35 <gaudenz> (for travel sponsorship that is= 19:15:36 <gaudenz> ) 19:15:47 <cate> gaudenz: the rating is for travel, where we have less money 19:15:55 <gaudenz> but as gwolf said I guess for this year it does not matter much. 19:16:01 <gwolf> gaudenz: My opinion is that both are somewhat overkill for this year's situation 19:16:10 <gwolf> where we should discuss some individual cases, and approve the rest 19:16:17 <gwolf> but that's not yet settled 19:16:54 <gwolf> Oh - and minor point on what gaudenz was suggesting at the meeting's beginning: 19:16:57 <gaudenz> I think we can already start looking at the list and make up our mind. That's the time consuming part anyway. Doing the rating the follows rather easier. 19:17:04 <gwolf> Should we formally abandon the meaningless "herb@" monkier? 19:17:24 <gwolf> That is, maybe we can ask admin@dc.o to kill that alias and use "bursaries@dc.o" instead 19:17:27 <gaudenz> s/the/then/ 19:17:38 <gwolf> and stop behaving as if herb@ meant anything 19:17:39 <gaudenz> gwolf: +1 19:18:01 <moray> gwolf: I would like that, for making things marginally less confusing for attendees 19:18:04 <gwolf> anybody objects? 19:18:17 <gwolf> ok 19:18:34 <gwolf> #action gwolf writes a mail to admin@debconf.org asking to nuke the herb@ alias and to create bursaries@ instead. 19:18:39 <gaudenz> #agreed herb@dc.o is dead, long live bursaries@debconf.org 19:18:55 <gaudenz> #topic aob 19:19:14 <gaudenz> from my part, thanks for the meeting 19:19:44 * gwolf sits quietly idling for an #endmeeting 19:19:47 <gaudenz> I have nothing to add anymore, sorry for pestering you with my insistance on finding victims ;-) 19:20:20 <gwolf> victims have to be found, that's a rule of the game :) 19:20:31 <gwolf> #endmeeting Bye bye meeting is over go have fun!