18:59:51 #startmeeting 18:59:51 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 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:59:54 hurray 19:00:18 shall i assist? 19:00:34 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 Please, do, nattie! 19:00:40 ok, add me? 19:00:45 how? 19:00:46 I dunno how. :( 19:00:49 (#addchair nattie) 19:00:52 #addchair nattie 19:00:53 i think vorlon has to do that 19:01:03 i *think* that's right 19:01:04 apparently that's not considered a "useful" command :) 19:01:06 #chair nattie 19:01:06 Current chairs: nattie vorlon 19:01:12 ah right - merci 19:01:18 ok - all present please say hi? 19:01:23 hi 19:01:26 #topic roll call 19:01:30 (present and taking part that is) 19:01:31 Steve Langasek 19:01:34 Nattie M-H 19:01:38 Patty L 19:01:47 tony mancill 19:01:58 Raphaël W 19:02:00 here 19:02:12 hello, here ;) 19:02:23 :) 19:02:38 Brian Gupta present ;p 19:02:49 ok, last call for participants 19:02:55 if anyone else drops in, please announce yourself to let us know you're here; in the meantime, moving on 19:03:00 #topic agenda 19:03:11 what other topics do we have? 19:03:14 reminder of location? 19:03:19 of the agenda, not DC14 :) 19:03:22 PORTLAND, OR! 19:03:25 Oh. :( 19:03:26 *g* 19:03:27 I think we probably wanted to discuss budget, sponsorship? 19:03:28 https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf14/Meetings 19:03:31 #link https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf14/Meetings 19:04:05 bgupta: is that correct? 19:04:17 and do we want to talk about the dc13 final report? 19:04:19 Yes.. 19:04:32 yes, on DC13 final report. 19:04:54 ok, added those items to the agenda 19:05:01 anything else people want to get on the agenda? 19:05:22 speak now or be assured of running out of time ;) 19:05:35 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 so really there's just the one BIG chunk of thing that needs discussing/fixing 19:05:55 and the others are nice incidentals AFAICT 19:06:02 well, let's take those topics in order from the agenda 19:06:09 *nods* 19:06:14 I emailed what I believe are the blockers for starting fundraising.. 19:06:18 #topic DebCamp / Sprints / other hacktime: dates, accomodation, venue 19:06:53 bgupta: moment - all in due course 19:06:57 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 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 Message-ID: <20131012230031.GB12087@virgil.dodds.net> 19:07:47 there were no replies at all 19:08:12 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 i think people haven't got around to responding, or think it needs more thought 19:08:43 what i do find is there is a certain desire for pre-full-DebConf activities 19:08:48 well, a decision needs to be made 19:08:51 analogous to DebCamp 19:08:52 so time is up 19:08:58 yeah, that's fair enough, a decision does need to be made 19:09:31 right, the idea of having "stuff in addition to DebConf" is fairly non-controversial 19:09:34 Do the pre-full-DebConf activities need to be a week-long? 19:10:01 i.e. Can we appease people by having a DebCamp that lasts no more than 3 days? 19:10:08 (On either side of DebConf) 19:10:18 harmoney: are you talking about aj's proposal, or something else? 19:10:29 the core question here is "what are the dates for DebConf" 19:10:34 which we announce, put on the website, etc. 19:10:39 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 I'm also very very drawn to Lucas's suggestion. 19:10:57 we do have a rough timeframe for the main chunk, right? 19:11:00 we can always add additional sprints or some small DebCamp-ish event later 19:11:05 Yeah. 19:11:24 and people are of course free to get together unofficially beforehand, but i think i suggested that elsewhere 19:11:27 but we need to know when to tell people "all-comers are welcome, the conference is open these days" 19:11:34 yes 19:12:09 so I strongly prefer option 1, having a little longer than a week for DebConf with baked-in hack time 19:12:32 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 I still favor having DebConf open on 23 Aug and end on 30 Aug. 19:12:35 i actually can't see the message - let me dig up from archives 19:12:40 And figure out DebCamp/Sprints around that. 19:12:53 harmoney: i think that's reasonable 19:13:18 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 harmoney: which is option 2, I believe 19:14:04 this is the message in question, right? http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131012.230031.53440f20.en.html 19:14:08 my original strawman was Aug 23-Aug 31 19:14:17 just a moment 19:14:30 so that's saturday to sunday? 19:14:30 tmancill: yes, that was the latest call for input 19:14:41 tmancill: thanks :) 19:14:48 #link http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131012.230031.53440f20.en.html call for feedback 19:14:51 nattie: Yes. 19:15:22 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 What that means in my mind is DebConf should remain 1 week 19:15:40 #link http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131001.175026.0a50b91b.en.html Steve's proposal 19:15:47 #link http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131002.135054.6fb41220.en.html aj's proposal 19:16:18 I like AJ's proposal a lot. 19:16:24 bgupta: people do not all have the same set of expectations 19:17:18 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 harmoney: I wasn't aware of that. 19:17:44 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 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 bgupta: I'm definitely one of those people 19:18:28 but this isn't about "should we have a DebCamp attached to DebConf" 19:18:40 this is about fixing the dates for the conference, can we please bring the discussion back around to that point? 19:18:45 vorlon: I would still say that DebConf would be billed as opening on 23 Aug, when talks start. 19:19:12 harmoney: by that reckoning it should also be listed as ending on Aug 28 when talks end. 19:19:19 True. 19:20:14 *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 and if we do that, I think we announce the whole date range as being "DebConf" 19:21:15 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 harmoney: nobody said 2 weeks. 19:21:31 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 but even so, it doesn't have to be billed as debconf 19:22:12 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 Why not 1 week debconf, + 3 day offiical camp + NN day unofficla camp before the official camp? 19:22:59 bgupta: that might be valid, if the last "camp" is "conf"? 19:23:27 s/valid/viable/ 19:23:34 sorry the order would be unofficial camp (4 days or so), then 3 day offical camp, then 7 day debconf. 19:24:17 bgupta: i would welcome that arrangement, actually 19:24:22 unofficial hear means not sponsored… 19:24:26 here 19:24:44 that would be fine, if cheapish accommodation could be found/negotiated 19:25:11 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 nattie: Accommodation for "a few" people at the university before-hand isn't an issue at this point. 19:26:02 harmoney: i guess the question is how many make "a few" 19:26:05 nattie: We may, in the end, need to assign a limit to "a few" as we approach Debconf. 19:26:24 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 vorlon: i don't think the hack time should be *scheduled* as such 19:26:48 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 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 harmoney: hopefully that includes me - i have to get my frontdesk in order ;) 19:27:38 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 (speaking from personal experience) 19:27:45 vorlon: i don't think there should strictly be an all-day schedule of talks anyway - it leads to overload 19:28:04 vorlon: i think we're basically agreeing, but not phrasing it the same way 19:28:05 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 tmancill: i think you're basically saying what i'm saying 19:28:24 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 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 21 Aug - 31 Aug, then? 19:29:12 another problem i can see is people not necessarily getting time off for an elongated debconf-proper 19:29:18 harmoney: 21 isn't possible, there's no accomodation :) 19:29:47 23-31 then? :) 19:30:08 What about setup time before the first day of talk ? 19:30:14 I'm happy with either 22-31 or 23-31 19:30:21 rafw: that's not a problem 19:30:22 don't we need to setup network and video, etc? 19:30:41 there's accomodation /for the setup crew/. There's no accomodation for everyone who will arrive on day 1. 19:30:43 rafw: Yes, and that's my low-ball pre-arrival approval for accommodations. 19:30:52 great 19:31:53 vorlon is in the process of rebooting his laptop. 19:32:20 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 nattie: Can you help us finalize this agenda item, call for objections and then move forward? :) 19:33:22 If we go with 22-31, that means talks start on 22 Aug, so arrival would have to be before that. 19:34:05 any objections to the dates being 23-31 august, with arrival day on 22 august? 19:34:16 speak now, or forever hold your peace... 19:34:21 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 bgupta: can you elaborate? Too long or too short? 19:35:08 So the plan is to do talks and hacking time during these 9 days right? 19:35:09 that can be the talk team's problem 19:35:15 rafw: Yes. 19:35:16 too long… when asking for time off from work. 19:35:40 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 Though, we can also coordinate talks and such after we set the dates. 19:36:42 right, I think that would be one of the considerations for scheduling 19:36:50 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 yes 19:37:00 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 so we probably want to make sure the substantive talks are all somewhere in the "middle" 19:37:04 so... any further objections? 19:37:10 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 it's not like what is done at DC14 has to be repeated in subsequent conferences 19:37:26 the scheduling model may well be unique to DC14 19:37:29 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 rafw: That's the core of Steve's proposal. :) 19:37:57 I just got it. 19:37:59 vorlon: no objection from, just trying to understand bgupta's concern 19:38:00 :) 19:38:15 s/from/from *me*/ 19:38:25 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 And the Europeans can get their "longer than a week for a long flight" wish granted. ;) 19:38:50 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 so I think we can lock this in and move on, yes? 19:39:21 sure 19:39:22 Yes, please. 19:39:26 bgupta: ? 19:39:39 It's not my decision.. 19:39:39 ok for me 19:39:44 dates are 23-31 August 2014, arrival day is 22 August? 19:39:49 just to confirm before i record it 19:39:59 #agreed DebConf 14 dates set at 23-31 Aug 2014, inclusive, not counting arrival/departure dates 19:40:02 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 nattie: Yes. 19:40:46 thanks :) 19:40:49 next topic! 19:41:07 #topic budget, sponsorship team kick-off 19:41:25 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 bgupta: you mentioned you've sent a kick-off mail to the sponsorship team - thanks for that 19:41:53 yes, the final report is needed before we can contact current DC13 sponsors. 19:42:07 I can understand that perspective 19:42:30 But on the other hand we can set up team, brochure and levels. 19:42:33 could we discuss the report in the next agenda item, please? 19:42:36 (interpolated) 19:42:37 And contact local sponsors in US. 19:42:38 but I don't think we want to entirely block sponsorship work on the final report 19:43:00 - I'm told that for many corporations, they need to get the sponsorship agreed before the end of the calendar year 19:43:12 *nods* 19:43:13 I would suggest to set up the brochure and level first. 19:43:24 what we definitely *don't* want to happen is delays like after DC10 and 11 19:43:25 - 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 so yes, I agree that we need to focus on the brochure and sponsorship leves 19:43:47 +l 19:43:50 vorlon: yes, that is what i am saying 19:44:16 so, we should discuss the level. 19:44:19 can someone spell out what's been proposed so far for the sponsorship levels 19:44:20 alll these things can dbbe done in parallel. 19:44:23 ? 19:44:32 for those of us who don't know the DC13 sponsorship levels off the top of our head 19:44:44 the only proposal so far ahas been to convert the CHF #s into USD and use the same. 19:44:51 the thing is everything was in CHF. 19:44:58 yes, but I don't know what "the same" means :) 19:45:01 Platinum 25'000 CHF 19:45:06 Gold 12'000 19:45:12 Silver 6000 19:45:19 Bronze 2000 19:45:28 http://media.debconf.org/dc13/sponsors/DebConf13_SponsoringBrochure.pdf (For bookmarking) 19:45:36 #link http://media.debconf.org/dc13/sponsors/DebConf13_SponsoringBrochure.pdf sponsorship levels from dc13 19:45:40 thanks 19:45:43 so how does this compare with DC10 19:45:44 ? 19:45:47 we dropped steel which was $500 or $1000. 19:45:48 that's probably the best point of comparison 19:45:54 a lot more 19:46:03 we had Supporter below 2000 19:46:26 So, that'd be $28,000 Platinum, $14,000 gold, $6600 Silver, $2300 Bronze 19:46:37 looking.. 19:46:40 I think it's the other way 19:46:45 multiply by 0.9 19:46:56 harmoney: i thought it was just to substitute the symbol? 19:46:57 22500, 10800, 5400, 1800 19:46:58 hi 19:47:01 harmoney: I thought the proposal on the table was "use the same nice round numbers, but say USD instead of CHF" 19:47:03 (At least, Yahoo Finance tells me so) 19:47:09 * vorlon waves to moray 19:47:10 vorlon: *nods* 19:47:15 vorlon: Oh oh, that sounds much better. 19:47:22 tmancill: nope it is correct i think. 19:47:25 well, I don't know how much better it sounds 19:47:36 because there seems to be concern that these levels are too high for US sponsors 19:47:47 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 still looking sorry 19:47:58 * tmancill got it backwards... thanks rafw 19:48:13 I am always confuse with these exchange rates. 19:48:47 I think the level should more or less stay the same. 19:48:50 $27,718.49 is 25K CHF 19:48:54 svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/debconf-data/dc10/sponsors/ has content 19:49:34 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 but that's "more or less the same (plus inflation)" over a couple of years, so far 19:50:09 that makes sense to me 19:50:10 even if perhaps we should define them in a less venue-specific way in the long-term (it's not clear) 19:50:25 but bgupta seems to be concerned that this won't fly with US sponsors 19:50:33 bgupta: perhaps you can expand 19:51:15 found the numbers from DC10: bronze $2k, silver $10k, gold $20k, platinum $30k 19:51:18 think I found it http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debconf-data/dc10/sponsors/sponsorpack.pdf?view=co 19:51:29 so not *really* that far off 19:51:38 so indeed, these numbers aren't actually all that different between DC10 and DC13 19:51:54 If anything, look a little lower for DC13. 19:52:03 platinum and silver were cheaper for DC13 than DC10, bronze and gold were more expensive 19:52:06 er, no 19:52:25 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 right …. the big differences being that bronze for DC10 got people some benefits.. other than the website link 19:52:37 and we had a steel level 19:52:48 please don't reintroduce more levels :) 19:52:51 bronze sponsors for DC10 got linux mag ad and shirt. 19:53:02 silver, gold, platinum were *all* more expensive for DC10 than DC13 19:54:06 bgupta: I don't see why we couldn't give them shirts at bronze 19:54:36 is this something that needs a team-wide discussion, really? 19:54:45 normally the sponsorship team propose something then it gets signed off 19:54:52 indeed 19:55:13 we're already at about an hour in - anything more concrete to add? 19:55:14 bgupta: would you be happy taking the action to draft a proposal for the DC14 sponsorship levels? 19:55:28 In that case, I like the idea of just changing the currency and declaring those our levels. 19:55:31 possibly with rafw's input if he has concerns 19:55:40 annnnd.. unlag. Nice. 19:56:01 #action bgupta draft a proposal for DC14 sponsors level (with discussion with sponsors-team) 19:56:04 but I'm pretty easy here, I trust the sponsorship team to be able to figure out the levels 19:56:22 what's a deadline for this? 19:56:33 well, it's needed for the brochure 19:56:43 it should be done in time for final spnsors brochure. 19:56:48 end of the month? 19:56:53 that's just short of two weeks 19:57:05 bgupta: is that acceptable? submitted for signoff by end of month? 19:57:08 We can't really start fundraising without brochure.. 19:57:23 we could say something like, we go with just changing the currency sign, unless a better proposal is agreed this month :) 19:57:24 bgupta: you can set yourself a sooner deadline if you wish :) 19:57:33 I just want to make sure that actions come with due dates ;) 19:57:49 vorlon: End of month is fine, but I want to get it done sooner. 19:58:02 moray: +1 19:58:09 bgupta: ok. So I won't start nagging you until the end of the month :) 19:58:19 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 buffer, even 19:58:25 #action bgupta draft a proposal for DC14 sponsors level (with discussion with sponsors-team). DUE 31 October 19:58:25 #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 (not sure if #action is a chair-only command, would be nice if this MeetBot would give feedback :) 19:58:59 #save 19:59:12 so that's one piece 19:59:34 there's also the question of the brochure itself 19:59:42 The big piece is the brochure. That's totally out of my skillset. 19:59:43 yep, all showing up 19:59:58 well, "personalised" text isn't all that useful 20:00:07 What skillset does the brochure need? Just a copy editor? 20:00:10 but updating the pictures definitely is, and adding at least a paragraph on this year 20:00:12 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 vorlon: shouldn't be 20:01:09 oh 20:01:25 except that you should revert to the prettier version, compared to last year 20:01:35 ;) 20:01:40 Well working with svg and other desktop publishing tools.. 20:01:46 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 bgupta: ok 20:01:57 but yes, it's just editing some SVG 20:02:03 right, so svg is the source rather than TeX, how weird ;) 20:02:20 I'm sure I could muddle through, but maybe someone else would like to take care of this? 20:02:23 and (preferably more than last year) adding some pretty pictures 20:02:43 tmancill: any chance this is something you'd be interested in helping with? 20:02:49 It's more important that it get done soon than super pretty. 20:03:10 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 (Although both would be great) 20:03:39 harmoney: one or two venue ones, one or two of work happening during the most recent DebConf 20:04:06 and maybe this year we can use tick/check marks, rather than square root signs 20:04:12 I can start digging up as many of the previous ones as I can.. I think many are still in svn. 20:04:23 I'm sure they're all still there 20:04:28 bgupta: I don't think you need to go any trouble digging 20:04:35 kk 20:04:38 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 tmancill: inkscape is the editor of choice :) 20:04:53 right - so we're aiming for the sponsorship brochure being done by the end of this month, right? 20:05:09 with details being filled in when the levels are fixed 20:05:26 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 the text will also need slightly reworded around debconf/"camp" 20:05:28 95% can be done without the levels. 20:05:37 bgupta: yes. 20:05:44 vorlon: it's not really useful to convert it 20:05:55 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 moray: fair enough, I thought that might be a problem 20:06:00 vorlon: especially since previous tex versions all looked very ugly 20:06:09 tmancill: wanna learn inkscape and own this action? :) 20:06:28 tmancill: I'm also happy with copy-editing if you need help in that regard. :) 20:06:46 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 tmancill: I can help! 20:07:02 tmancill: well, the layout is already there 20:07:07 (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 tmancill: basically the key is just to change as little as possible 20:07:20 sounds good! :) 20:07:27 (Tutoring come with beer?) 20:07:35 tmancill: hopefully the previous-year brochures give you a good framework, and it's mostly a copy refresh, yeah :-) 20:07:48 tmancill: thanks. If you find yourself getting stuck, please raise the flag 20:07:53 Will do. 20:07:56 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 #action tmancill to provide an updated sponsorship brochure based on the one from DC12, due Oct 31 20:08:37 that leaves the question of the budget 20:08:46 is this a prereq for the sponsorship drive? 20:08:53 not really 20:08:56 ok 20:08:58 clever sponsors might ask about it 20:09:01 then I suggest we table this for now 20:09:02 but most won't 20:09:05 Not a prereq, but we'd want to know our targets pretty soon 20:09:10 at most they'll ask about previous years 20:09:18 bgupta: right, that's a different angle on it 20:09:19 Can we set a deadline for creating the budget? 20:09:26 we already have solid numbers for the venue/accom/food 20:09:35 bgupta: but of course initially the target is just "as much as possible" 20:09:42 so I think we want to kick this particular can down the road 20:09:51 right 20:09:56 Can we set a deadline for creating the budget? 20:10:05 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 moray: Sure, but it will be useful to know come late November how much to kill ourselves before year end. 20:10:18 Even if budget deadline is something like 31 January, can we set a deadline? 20:10:40 I think we shoud have a strong budget by the end of November. 20:10:41 hug has mentioned he's willing to help with the budget angle 20:10:49 so I can take an action to work with him on nailing down numbers 20:10:54 is end of November good for everyone? 20:10:56 How about first draft budget by a month from now? 20:11:01 harmoney: I would suggest creating a rough budget soon with the known parts and publishing that 20:11:10 rafw: +1 So, budget setting deadline of 30 Nov? 20:11:11 harmoney: then setting a second deadline to firm it up 20:11:24 agree 20:11:27 which might only be once we know how previous sponsors are going, etc. 20:11:29 #action vorlon to work with hug to get a first draft budget done ASAP 20:11:38 #agreed budget to be set by 30 November 20:11:39 #action vorlon to work with hug to get a firmed-up budget by 30 Nov 20:11:43 Hurray! 20:11:44