19:29:47 #startmeeting 19:29:47 Meeting started Thu Mar 12 19:29:47 2015 UTC. The chair is marga. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:29:47 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:29:55 As far as I know, we don't have an agenda 19:30:03 uhoh. 19:30:28 The goal of this meeting is to try to iron out any remaining conflicting points in the budget, so that it can be submitted to the chairs and DPL for approval 19:31:12 There's been a lot of activity in the ML about this in the past days, and I'm not sure exactly what the remaining conflicting points are 19:32:07 #topic Conflicting issues that need to be discussed 19:32:24 maybe this could be split between "internal" conflicts (DebConf teams wrt current budget) and "external" conflicts (chairs+DPL wrt current budget) 19:32:25 If you are around and have a budget issue that you'd like to see discussed, please #info it 19:32:56 for content, I have a question 19:33:12 pls ask 19:33:33 we have a budget of 2.5kEU for invited speakers, we just want to be clear about how we will use it 19:33:53 if food&accomm will be deducted from there, or if we can point the speakers to bursaries 19:34:06 #info madduck and I have a slightly different view about how volunteer travel should be budgeted (internal conflict, but not a blocker) 19:34:06 and allocate their food&accom as a normal attendant 19:34:10 You shouldn't point speakers to bursaries 19:34:38 great, that way we allocate that money as part of travel expenses for invited speakers only 19:34:56 I believe invited speakers budget should be managed by content team, without bursaries intervention. 19:35:06 well 19:35:24 the question is, how many nights do we offer to the speaker, full DebConf? 19:35:28 oi 19:35:33 azeem: yes 19:35:39 the question is if food+acoom will need to get out of content budget 19:35:43 bremner: that's expensive 19:35:43 I think they should decide on it, if we think they are a good asset for the conference 19:35:46 azeem, that's for the content team to decide, but yes. 19:36:05 and we are inviting they to attend and deliver a talk, they can also join us for the full conference if they want 19:36:06 azeem: usually it's a benefit to the conference to have speakers hang out 19:36:07 azeem: yes, because you want them to stay as much as they will (what rmayorga says) 19:36:07 the outreach budget was done with all-inclusive tickets in mind 19:36:08 also, I think we should offer speakers a single room, but that's my view 19:36:18 but only two nights 19:36:33 azeem, we don't have that many single rooms 19:36:35 just letting you know the design 19:36:41 I think we need not discuss that now 19:36:45 Indeed 19:36:50 but focus on what we need lucas for 19:36:50 marga: right, so the content team would have to pay to free up a double 19:36:52 whatever 19:37:41 so we can provide sponsorship to the same amount of people as DC12-14 within the basic budget proposal 19:38:17 yes, this is how the budget was created… with data from the past, as best as I could. 19:38:27 proposal: #agreed [Not a conflict] Content team can assign their invited speaker budget as they see fit without intervention from bursaries 19:38:32 and you did well as the cross-check proves 19:39:01 marga: this is what bursaries prefer too, afaiui, and what makes most sense 19:39:11 ack 19:39:18 so, we currently have ~26k that are *not* yet covered by sponsor comittments (but very likely will in the next months) 19:39:28 #agreed [Not a conflict] Content team can assign their invited speaker budget as they see fit without intervention from bursaries 19:39:52 Actually... We just had news of a sponsor committing to Platinum. So, it's only 6k not covered. 19:39:54 DLange: 30k but yes 19:40:01 is that what we ask lucas to cover as a "risk" and anything on top of the 35k for sponsorship if more (unlikely) is needed? 19:40:04 * madduck highfives marga 19:40:15 marga, the issue was not really the intervention of bursaries 19:40:21 marga: great, congrats! 19:40:37 tassia, I thought that was rmayorga's question. If that wasn't it, then maybe rephrase 19:40:43 DLange, not my work, actually. 19:40:55 yeah, probably I need to rephrase 19:40:57 it was more in the sense to release the content for food+accom 19:41:09 team work, but you do a lot marga. Much appreciated! 19:41:29 cause it will mean that we'll have less to fund their travel 19:41:53 the question is: Do we need to allocate money for food&accom from our budget?, or we can just assumme that invited speakers will have food&accomm allocated from the normal attendant budget 19:42:12 rmayorga: please allocate it from your budget, and if you need more, tell me. 19:42:21 Ok, I believe it should come from the invited speakers budget 19:42:26 right 19:42:44 ok 19:42:46 point is that we don't want/need invited speakers to be vetted, so no need to make more work for bursaries 19:43:22 (same goes for newbies and diversity outreach, though this is more bursaries topic anyway at this stage; could be content too. needs to be figured out) 19:43:29 #agreed Mone for food & accom of invited speakers should come from the same pool. 19:43:33 makes sense to put in in content's budget+decision, but content will then need more moneees 19:44:02 I'm afraid that mones is on VAC now :) 19:44:15 Right, that's the next thing. It probably makes sense to make it higher... 19:44:50 can we try to agree on the budget totals and shift in between later 19:45:09 because it doesn't matter which budget line pays the food+acc for $attendee_type 19:45:17 sums up the same 19:45:39 rmayorga: I increased it to 3500, as one person costs about 300 for room/accom and so now you have 1000 more. 19:46:00 Ok, the only conflicting issue that was raised was volunteer travel 19:46:03 Let's discuss that 19:46:05 300 room/accom, for the full week, right ? 19:46:08 #topic Volunteeer travel 19:46:17 DLange: not all items are of the same importance 19:46:21 bremner, can you try to make the point that you wanted to discuss? 19:46:23 the idea on this was to have every team decide on their own volunteers, afair 19:46:31 this is minor, but maybe leads to main a main issue. 19:46:40 rmayorga: yes; full week. 19:46:44 ok, great 19:47:07 RichiH: this was all on food+acc and who manages it for their target group, so all the same food+acc whoever grants it 19:47:18 * bremner waits patiently 19:47:42 bremner: i think you have the floor 19:47:44 bremner, ? What are you waiting for? 19:47:51 so, it's about what budget we consider guaranteed, and what we consider "if the funds arrive" 19:48:24 madduck proposes that the volunteer funds are guaranteed, and the attendee funds are "if the funds arrive" 19:48:33 marga: he's talking about backed and optional travel sponsorship i believe. just letting you know as this was your impetus. 19:48:34 I sortof get why 19:48:34 ah, sorry I was thinking about food+accom, not travel 19:48:42 do we want to fund travel for volunteers? 19:48:56 my proposal is to consider all of the base szenario guaranteed (we're 9k short only) 19:49:03 (as in people who is not otherwise deserving travel sponsorship) 19:49:04 traditionally we have if requested and they have done work 19:49:32 stuff over needs (like probably video) can be converted to more sponsorship (=later batches) or other needs that arise 19:49:39 but I think it looks bad to not guarantee at least as much attendee travel sponsorship as volunteer. 19:49:47 bremner: I think lucas wants attendee sponsorship be one of the most important items 19:49:54 it is 19:49:56 volunteers are attendees, and who looks? 19:50:07 Tincho: yes, that's why said this minor issue leads to a main conflict 19:50:14 heck, even we have problems figuring out the numbers… 19:50:17 I'm not sure where this order came from 19:50:27 or at least a main failure of communication 19:50:33 * madduck raises hand if I may say something here 19:50:38 I'm done 19:50:38 I am not sure we want to sponsor them. does anybody have a rationale? 19:50:54 I do, but madduck is talking. 19:50:54 I think core-orga people, without whom the running of the conference may suffer should go first, attendees second, non-attendee-volunteers last 19:50:55 Tincho: it's a nice way to give back to those who have donated time to make it happen? 19:51:01 bremner: go ahead, I can wait 19:51:09 ok 19:51:40 Tincho: my original goal was really a process one, to shift the decisions onto the people who knew who was most useful to have at debconf 19:51:53 bremner: right, I agree on that 19:52:13 marga: non-attendee-volunteers? 19:52:14 but it is not really clear what we are talking about 19:52:18 it is orga 19:52:22 on-site volunteers 19:52:35 (that have no other relationship) 19:52:38 or what? 19:52:57 RichiH, not involved in Debian, not involved in DebConf outside of their on-site volunteering 19:52:58 Tincho: my original conception (which is not law) was that it was for people that bursaries is unable to judge. But I agree the issue is more complicated 19:53:16 right, marga says what I mean 19:53:27 so, i have a proposal, having thought about this some 19:53:31 ok 19:53:49 if we agree that teams should be able to allocate funds to sponsor (some of) their volunteers 19:54:05 then I think this should be made a separate budget account 19:54:16 and if we agree 19:54:30 that the teams fund (a) those who are needed and (b) those in need 19:54:38 then I think it would be reasonable to say that 19:54:50 this is something we should ensure as early as possible 19:55:01 so my proposal, and this is actually marga's original idea, is that 19:55:07 debian commits X to the budget 19:55:19 and this X is allocated to this budget line 19:55:34 all the other (optional) sponsorship funds 19:55:38 then come out of regular income 19:55:44 19:56:01 What was wrong on last DebConf? What are we correcting? We are overcomplicating things. 19:56:17 madduck: ok for me. 19:56:42 cate: only for budget, and I can tell you that budget wants more detail, rather than less. 19:56:44 what does it solve if that funding comes from Debian rather than regular income? I don't get it. 19:57:06 The uncertainty. 19:57:06 lucas: we can commit it at bid acceptance time 19:57:19 people know way before the first sponsor pays that they will attend 19:57:26 which should drive their motivation too 19:57:30 Although we have very little uncertainty right now, having raised already almost all the money that needs to be raised according to the spreadsheet 19:57:40 madduck: is just that I think with -pa hat, and really I find complex, and I hope we should sponsor nobody :-) 19:57:49 ah, you mean for future DebConf editions? 19:57:52 and dc16 will be even earlier than we were, so… but still. it just makes sense to me. 19:57:55 lucas: yes. 19:58:33 no problem on budget, it is only how teams should implemeent that worry me. But go on... we are a minor team on volunteer side 19:58:56 bremner: I remember this making sense in my head back then, but now I wonder if it is fair to travel-sponsor this kind of volunteer 19:59:30 Tincho: we're talking about EUR2000 for all teams. I think they will prefer to spend on accomodation 19:59:52 Tincho: that's something that will need to be learnt 20:00:12 bremner: just to make sure, you mean "each"? 20:00:23 Tincho: in the past we have paid video team members to drive stuff 20:00:37 So my food and accommodation should come from the team budget, also if I'm a DD? 20:00:37 So, the proposal is: each team gets 2000 budget for funding its volunteers? 20:00:43 RichiH: No, I said all, but feel free to ask madduck for more money 20:00:51 [as example] 20:00:59 Yeah, cate's question is important 20:01:02 marga: maybe not one sum for all, but something to be determined for each team 20:01:14 I think this makes things unnecessarily complicated 20:01:17 bremner: ah, ok 20:01:23 cate: only if you check "I am primarly applying as a volunteer" 20:01:31 * RichiH does not really have an opinion either way, he just wanted to be sure 20:01:43 marga: well, we're somewhat committed to the concept, via summit. 20:01:52 cate: no. then bursaries decide. I think we are talking about people necessary to run the conference, (1) on site, and then (2) even before it went on. 20:01:56 bremner, but not necessarily splitting the budget lines 20:02:05 this is a purely organisational question: we *need* those people, so we should remove all doubt that they can come 20:02:12 I thought that we had agreed that the evaluation of the volunteers would be done by each separate team 20:02:16 this is all assuming that they *want* it 20:02:28 (i.e. infra would talk about video volunteers, pa about front desk volunteers, etc) 20:02:39 ok 20:03:00 madduck, ok, in that case I think we should talk about them as orga or staff and not as volunteers 20:03:18 marga: for me splitting the budget line is a primary goal, so that it is transparent how much debconf spends on staff 20:03:20 We are all volunteers, yes, but it makes it hard to understand what we are talking about if we use a very diluted word. 20:03:31 marga: fair enough. I had not made that distinction. 20:03:51 so yes, staff needed for the conference or who have already done a shitload of work 20:04:02 they should come out of a separate budget line 20:04:04 backed by debian 20:04:07 ? 20:04:10 so that we can assert it ASAP 20:04:19 and this budget line 20:04:25 I disagree a bit with the latter, but I'm happy to let team leads decide 20:04:28 gets made available (split among) the teams 20:04:38 I don't like "reward" money very much. 20:04:39 We have the money for that, we don't need the Debian backing. If you are talking about the future... Maybe 20:04:47 yes, future 20:04:58 I'd prefer to concentrate on DC15 for this meeting 20:05:09 * madduck goes back to his corner 20:05:13 How much money are you proposing is reserved for staff? 20:05:14 sorry, I got overexcited. 20:05:15 so what do we need to get this year's budget approved by .. what marga says 20:05:31 marga: right now: 15k, which is what I understood lucas would def. be willing to commit. 20:05:32 marga: I proposed EUR2k, as mentioned 20:05:44 uh. communication failure. 20:05:52 we don't have to use the 15k! 20:05:52 bremner, that's not nearly enough to bring in all the DebConf staff 20:06:02 so lucas: can we have 15k from Debian which we'll very, very likely repay? 20:06:18 to make sure that core staff can attend? 20:06:36 but most of debconf staff would be funded anyway, caus ethey have outside debconf contributions, right? 20:06:47 yes. 20:06:56 Yeah, I'm finding all this invisible virtual lines very confusing 20:07:05 so why not using all the same pool and just prioritizing those people 20:07:14 they would come first in the line 20:07:38 I agree with tassia, I don't think how drawing these distinctions help for core-orga people, that we NEED there 20:07:43 tassia: so we can give them signals before the rest of the data arrive 20:07:46 but spliting with arbitrary numbers seems to me an unnecessary complication 20:07:54 … 20:07:56 in past debconfs, they were part of the same pool, and were just prioritized by bursaries? so this was hidden in the $45k travel sponsorship at DC14, for example? 20:08:04 lucas, yes 20:08:27 in my opinion people are mixing up two groups 20:08:47 it also makes things harder cause we don't have very well defined roles in debconf 20:08:57 i keep writing and rewriting stuff, but it boils down to agreeing with marga: i am not sure if we can really draw lines 20:09:01 there is the overall staff, which better include people who actually contribute to debian, and the small group of people who only contribute to debconf 20:09:10 that line is easy to draw 20:09:18 it is already drawn, in summit 20:09:31 bremner, but debconf is debian 20:09:36 By the "Organizer" field? 20:09:40 Or how? 20:09:44 question: it really sounds like we kinda all agree on the basics. do we have to agree on the details of budgeting in this meeting too? 20:09:53 if the person is a long term debconf contributor, than he/she is a debian contributor 20:09:59 yes 20:10:16 20 mins left 20:10:18 we are talking about people that merely ask for sponsorship because they will do on-the-ground work 20:10:19 marga: by the "I am primarily applying as a volunteer button" 20:10:19 tassia: I don't think that's necessarily true. 20:10:46 e.g. many accompanying people ask to be volunteers and to have some costs removed 20:10:47 before committing to a number, it would be interesting to evaluate how many debconf-only contributors were sponsored for past debconfs. 15k€ seems huge 20:10:49 madduck: debconf's primary purpose is to serve debian 20:10:50 bremner, but that's not "core orga". A lot of "core orga" people are involved enough in Debian that they would not tick that box 20:10:58 so that's basically non-uploading 20:11:04 marga: yes. as I have said 20 times in this meeting 20:11:12 * bremner is becoming mildly annoyed. 20:11:16 bremner, that's what makes this so very confusing 20:11:25 RichiH: that's too abstract and not on http://www.debconf.org/goals.shtml 20:11:45 well. we are spending the whole meeting talking about EUR2K. This is not a good plan. 20:11:48 On the one hand, we want to make sure that core-orga people are funded first. On the other hand, a lot of core-orga people don't apply primarily as volunteers.... 20:12:05 core-orga people will be funded via regular bursaries 20:12:08 bremner, it's 2k for you, 15k for madduck, and I actually don't see the benefit in either. 20:12:10 the fields are designed for that 20:12:19 Alright. So, let's back up a little bit 20:12:38 1) core-orga people will be handled by bursaries, from the normal budget 20:12:49 ack 20:13:09 2) special teams fund their needed people from their budget allocation 20:13:15 2) volunteers that are not known to bursaries (and that have ticked the volunteer box when applying) should be handled by each of the teams 20:13:22 marga: ack 20:13:44 And the question is, how much money we allocate for these volunteers and how we prioritize them? 20:13:45 DLange: there is a pooled line for all teams, but ack 20:13:46 Are core-orga dc16 people who are not Debian contributors in pool 2)? 20:13:55 cate: yes 20:14:01 madduck: which team? 20:14:20 cate: local team. 20:14:49 so, we may need more money in pool 2, I don't think that's a problem 20:15:08 marga: is there a (3) ? 20:15:28 maybe 3) How much money should go into 2) ? 20:15:40 bremner: really, just figure out how it should work and then tell us. You are bursaries, thankfully, and you know how it works. I would like to be your servant on the budget side. 20:15:53 You proposed 2k. I think that's too low to actually be significant 20:16:09 marga: OK, it was based on travel only. 20:16:25 madduck: you want to put food and accomodation into that number? 20:16:26 Yes, even then. It's like 4 people? 20:16:39 bremner: yes. 20:16:41 marga: historically we have not funded many people this way. 20:16:51 Ok. 20:17:01 madduck, do we have local team the budget? 20:17:17 OK, let's say that madduck, RichiH ? and I will figure out how to balance the two pools? just give us a total to work with 20:17:23 tassia: I don't understand the question. 20:17:32 #agreed core-orga people will be handled by bursaries, from the normal budget. volunteers that are not known to bursaries (and that have ticked the volunteer box when applying) should be handled by each of the teams. Exact amount of money for this still to be determined. 20:17:57 except for the "from the normal budget" part, but whatever. 20:17:58 madduck, sorry, I think I misunderstood 20:18:11 madduck, that's what we just agreed to, sorry. 20:18:21 I'd like to change the subject slightly 20:18:33 #topic Debian backed sponsorship funds 20:18:50 #info madduck wants to re-asses the core-orga and backed sponsorship budget post-dc15 20:19:13 sorry 20:19:35 So, madduck mentioned this earlier. Right now we are at a point that we will likely not need this, as we are almost completely funded. However, it does make sense to say that Debian will back X amount of money for travel sponsorship, which would be a minimum, and then know that that money is there. 20:19:53 but this is for the future; let's do this another time, marga 20:19:59 +1 20:20:01 it is not relevant to dc15 20:20:03 But it can still be for today 20:20:11 It was mentioned that the current budget for travel was small 20:20:17 i'd much rather talk about approval of budget and how to move from here 20:20:18 i.e. 30k EUR is probably not enough 20:20:32 For the record, 30k EUR matches previous years quite well 20:20:43 the actual usage. please see my latest reply to lucas. 20:20:44 Would it be possible to have 30k EUR as Debian backed, and 15k EUR extra? 20:21:22 I read lucas' email as almost an open offer of travel sponsorship if we make a case for it. 20:21:37 right, on top of what's budgeted 20:21:40 i think we should let lucas say what he meant :) 20:21:44 ack 20:21:56 marga: the 30k do not include a cent from debian, so… 20:22:15 madduck, well, I was adding 15k extra 20:22:24 I think what could work is: as part of DebConf's balanced budget, 30k travel sponsorship excluding group (2) above, + current numbers for accom/food sponsorship. additional sponsorship money (accom or travel) from Debian funds if needed. 20:23:00 lucas, sorry, I'm having trouble parse that 20:23:05 same 20:23:32 mmh 20:24:00 I read it as 30K+as-needed for bursaries to spend on travel 20:24:05 pls try again and differentiate into Debian and Debconf e.V. funds 20:24:14 the DebConf incomes would cover for expenses of 30k€ of travel sponsorship and the accom sponsorsip at the current level 20:24:33 that's only DebConf e.V. so far 20:24:48 correct, agreed and budgeted like that 20:25:00 the above 30k€ would not include group (2) above (DebConf-only contributors) 20:25:48 o.k., that's an (internal) shift that may or may not increase overall "required" travel funds 20:25:58 then, if needed and considered useful by bursaries, Debian funds could be used to cover additional travel sponsorship (through a later approval by the DPL) 20:26:13 FtR and *please* memorise this: DebCon15 != DebConf e.V., esp. not financially. We are using SPI and debian.ch as well, because we need to for tax requirements and other logistics. *Please* just leave this up to treasury. 20:26:41 lucas, that makes sense but makes it very hard to come up with a budget 20:26:43 madduck: right, sorry. DLange's fault :-) 20:26:55 nobody's fault. just making sure everyone knows. 20:26:57 yes, but we understood each other regardless 20:27:04 thanks for the correction still 20:27:13 marga: budget for 30K. We know to ask for more if we need it 20:27:13 I need to go offline now 20:27:17 I 20:27:21 ok. 20:27:25 I'll check logs later 20:27:30 Alright, then let's move on 20:27:31 o/ 20:27:33 marga: i could work this into a budget under two conditions 20:27:44 * marga waits for conditions 20:28:12 (1) debian would commit those 30k (or let's call it X) before bursaries have data 20:28:27 (2) chairs and DPL would approve the budget 20:28:37 Well, that's my next topic :) 20:28:43 (and long before registration opens in the future) 20:28:46 #topic Process for getting approval of the budget and moving on 20:28:49 what does it mean "debian would commit those 30k" 20:28:52 ? 20:29:16 lucas: that you say "yes, Debian will give you 30k upon request to be used exclusively towards travel sponsorship but not for people included in (2) above" 20:29:27 i.e. allocated and possibly earmarked funds 20:29:43 and you'd say this e.g. in October ;) 20:29:55 Right, so this is for DC16, not DC15. 20:29:57 the earlier the better anyway 20:30:06 well, for dc15 it would mean: now. 20:30:21 but we don't need money from Debian? 20:30:23 madduck: what problem are you trying to solve? 20:30:27 What I wanted was to secure backing for extra sponsorship for DC15, to be able to sponsor more people. But instead we can ask if needed. 20:30:48 lucas: are you wanting to wait with the allocation of Debian funds until the need is proven? It seems that the fact of the availability of Debian funds early in the cycle is the really important thing, since later on we generally have more than enough money, so this waiting approach makes the Debian funds pretty much irrelevant 20:30:52 bremner: we can always make use of more money. 20:31:07 bremner: in sensible ways. 20:31:30 ok, but please answer lucas. what problem are you solving? 20:31:54 how to put the above into the budget 20:32:13 this is all just followup to the last topic 20:32:37 30k from Debcon e.V/SPI/debian.ch -> travel for Debian contribs only 20:32:38 fil: for DC15, Debian provided a loan early in the process. that's not a problem. 20:32:56 DLange: please: don't worry about where the money is kept. 20:33:17 lucas: the point is more that if we know we can sponsor at least X travel, bursaries can act more quickly 20:33:19 I was trying to answer your "how to put it into the budget question" 20:33:20 madduck: Income: Debian contribution to travel sponsorship ; Expense: additional travel sponsorship from Debian 20:33:22 madduck: as I understand it, 30k goes into the budget. 20:33:32 that being said, i don't think bursaries are blocked right now 20:33:40 RichiH: why? 20:33:53 for the record, I'm fine with lucas funding model for bursaries 20:34:02 lucas: cause we know we have X; no matter from what source 20:34:12 RichiH: the very nice thing about bremner's magic plan for bursaries is that it's independent of the amount requested 20:34:14 i dream of the day that treasury can do treasury and accounting can do accounting. 20:34:16 lucas: ah, fair enough -- sorry for the noise 20:34:38 RichiH: s/requested/available/ 20:34:40 lucas: it matters for the cutoff in bremner's plan 20:34:53 but if bremner is happy, i will just shut up 20:35:43 so back to marga's question, what is actually blocking us? 20:36:20 budget approval. 20:37:05 the budget needs to be updated to reflect this meeting; it probably needs to be reviewed again (I'd like chairs to ACK it, as I'm clueless about DebConf details); then it can be approved 20:37:38 it's already updated. the only change required to my knowledge was 1k to invited speakers. 20:37:41 madduck: update "worst case" for 30k travel and new platinum? 20:37:42 or did you commit thos 30k now? 20:37:54 bremner: platinum as soon as I wrote the invoice. 20:38:05 there is no worst case income scneario 20:38:08 only status quo 20:38:24 also special line(s) for debconf-only contributors, or make it clear to teams that it should be accounted in their budgets? 20:39:01 can bursaries create those lines within the total budget later? 20:39:11 or can we create sublines within totals later 20:39:23 more fine-grained splitting without effect for the overall spending 20:39:30 or does all of this need reviewal and approval? 20:39:44 madduck: just the group 1/ group 2 split now? 20:40:06 okay, bremner, I might ask you again after the meeting 20:40:15 fine. 20:40:20 well I thought bursaries would not deal with travel sponsorship allocation for debconf-only contributors? 20:40:26 so what then, I prepare a new budget and then chairs look at it and approve it and then you approve it? 20:40:33 can we please have a timeline/deadline for this? 20:40:42 lucas: yeah, just with the budgeting 20:41:51 so you can have the updated budget tonight. Can we have budget approval next Tuesday? End of next week? March 20? March 27? 20:42:15 madduck, it requires the chairs to approve first 20:42:24 oh yay bureaucracy 20:43:11 madduck: I'll take a look tomorrow for sure, and can approve at most 24h after chairs. 20:43:27 so chairs by next tuesday and you by march 20? 20:43:47 i mean, if there is stuff to discuss left, please bring it up??? 20:44:15 madduck: in your current status quo budget, what is the travel sponsorship amount? 20:44:35 because I saw 15k in the last version and I don't think that will fly 20:45:09 bremner: 30k€ currently AFAIK 20:45:11 bremner: it was 30k in both cases 20:45:37 but last night i reduced it by 15k since lucas committed 15k in case we don't meet target 20:46:18 and now we more or less meet the target so forget that whole thing? 20:46:53 sure, but this is a discussion that happens *every* year 20:46:58 and I just want it solved 20:47:06 I mean, budgeting isn't rocket science 20:47:25 much harder. 20:47:25 getting ahead of myself here 20:47:33 well, we have a solution and committment from lucas 20:47:47 so lucas committed 30k earmarked as per scrollback? 20:47:47 So, madduck you'd send the budget to the chairs tonight, to lucas as soon as that is approved? 20:47:52 madduck: no. 20:48:08 this what I am trying to clarify 20:48:50 you say you have 30k in the budget, covered by dc15 income. 20:48:55 yes 20:49:12