19:29:47 <marga> #startmeeting
19:29:47 <MeetBot> 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 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:29:55 <marga> As far as I know, we don't have an agenda
19:30:03 <bremner> uhoh.
19:30:28 <marga> 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 <marga> 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 <marga> #topic Conflicting issues that need to be discussed
19:32:24 <lucas> maybe this could be split between "internal" conflicts (DebConf teams wrt current budget) and "external" conflicts (chairs+DPL wrt current budget)
19:32:25 <marga> If you are around and have a budget issue that you'd like to see discussed, please #info it
19:32:56 <rmayorga> for content, I have a question
19:33:12 <DLange> pls ask
19:33:33 <rmayorga> 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 <rmayorga> if food&accomm will be deducted from there, or if we can point the speakers to bursaries
19:34:06 <bremner> #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 <rmayorga> and allocate their food&accom as a normal attendant
19:34:10 <marga> You shouldn't point speakers to bursaries
19:34:38 <rmayorga> great, that way we allocate that money as part of travel expenses for invited speakers only
19:34:56 <marga> I believe invited speakers budget should be managed by content team, without bursaries intervention.
19:35:06 <azeem> well
19:35:24 <azeem> the question is, how many nights do we offer to the speaker, full DebConf?
19:35:28 <RichiH> oi
19:35:33 <bremner> azeem: yes
19:35:39 <tassia> the question is if food+acoom will need to get out of content budget
19:35:43 <azeem> bremner: that's expensive
19:35:43 <rmayorga> I think they should decide on it, if we think they are a good asset for the conference
19:35:46 <marga> azeem, that's for the content team to decide, but yes.
19:36:05 <rmayorga> 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 <bremner> azeem: usually it's a benefit to the conference to have speakers hang out
19:36:07 <DLange> azeem: yes, because you want them to stay as much as they will (what rmayorga says)
19:36:07 <madduck> the outreach budget was done with all-inclusive tickets in mind
19:36:08 <azeem> also, I think we should offer speakers a single room, but that's my view
19:36:18 <madduck> but only two nights
19:36:33 <marga> azeem, we don't have that many single rooms
19:36:35 <madduck> just letting you know the design
19:36:41 <DLange> I think we need not discuss that now
19:36:45 <marga> Indeed
19:36:50 <DLange> but focus on what we need lucas for
19:36:50 <azeem> marga: right, so the content team would have to pay to free up a double
19:36:52 <azeem> whatever
19:37:41 <DLange> so we can provide sponsorship to the same amount of people as DC12-14 within the basic budget proposal
19:38:17 <madduck> yes, this is how the budget was created… with data from the past, as best as I could.
19:38:27 <marga> proposal: #agreed [Not a conflict] Content team can assign their invited speaker budget as they see fit without intervention from bursaries
19:38:32 <DLange> and you did well as the cross-check proves
19:39:01 <madduck> marga: this is what bursaries prefer too, afaiui, and what makes most sense
19:39:11 <bremner> ack
19:39:18 <DLange> so, we currently have ~26k that are *not* yet covered by sponsor comittments (but very likely will in the next months)
19:39:28 <marga> #agreed [Not a conflict] Content team can assign their invited speaker budget as they see fit without intervention from bursaries
19:39:52 <marga> Actually... We just had news of a sponsor committing to Platinum. So, it's only 6k not covered.
19:39:54 <madduck> DLange: 30k but yes
19:40:01 <DLange> 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 <tassia> marga, the issue was not really the intervention of bursaries
19:40:21 <DLange> marga: great, congrats!
19:40:37 <marga> tassia, I thought that was rmayorga's question. If that wasn't it, then maybe rephrase
19:40:43 <marga> DLange, not my work, actually.
19:40:55 <rmayorga> yeah, probably I need to rephrase
19:40:57 <tassia> it was more in the sense to release the content for food+accom
19:41:09 <DLange> team work, but you do a lot marga. Much appreciated!
19:41:29 <tassia> cause it will mean that we'll have less to fund their travel
19:41:53 <rmayorga> 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 <madduck> rmayorga: please allocate it from your budget, and if you need more, tell me.
19:42:21 <marga> Ok, I believe it should come from the invited speakers budget
19:42:26 <madduck> right
19:42:44 <rmayorga> ok
19:42:46 <madduck> 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 <madduck> (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 <marga> #agreed Mone for food & accom of invited speakers should come from the same pool.
19:43:33 <Tincho> makes sense to put in in content's budget+decision, but content will then need more moneees
19:44:02 <rmayorga> I'm afraid that mones is on VAC now :)
19:44:15 <marga> Right, that's the next thing.  It probably makes sense to make it higher...
19:44:50 <DLange> can we try to agree on the budget totals and shift in between later
19:45:09 <DLange> because it doesn't matter which budget line pays the food+acc for $attendee_type
19:45:17 <DLange> sums up the same
19:45:39 <madduck> 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 <marga> Ok, the only conflicting issue that was raised was volunteer travel
19:46:03 <marga> Let's discuss that
19:46:05 <rmayorga> 300 room/accom, for the full week, right ?
19:46:08 <marga> #topic Volunteeer travel
19:46:17 <RichiH> DLange: not all items are of the same importance
19:46:21 <marga> bremner, can you try to make the point that you wanted to discuss?
19:46:23 <Tincho> the idea on this was to have every team decide on their own volunteers, afair
19:46:31 <bremner> this is minor, but maybe leads to main a main issue.
19:46:40 <madduck> rmayorga: yes; full week.
19:46:44 <rmayorga> ok, great
19:47:07 <DLange> 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 <RichiH> bremner: i think you have the floor
19:47:44 <marga> bremner, ? What are you waiting for?
19:47:51 <bremner> so, it's about what budget we consider guaranteed, and what we consider "if the funds arrive"
19:48:24 <bremner> madduck proposes that the volunteer funds are guaranteed, and the attendee funds are "if the funds arrive"
19:48:33 <madduck> marga: he's talking about backed and optional travel sponsorship i believe. just letting you know as this was your impetus.
19:48:34 <bremner> I sortof get why
19:48:34 <Tincho> ah, sorry I was thinking about food+accom, not travel
19:48:42 <Tincho> do we want to fund travel for volunteers?
19:48:56 <DLange> my proposal is to consider all of the base szenario guaranteed (we're 9k short only)
19:49:03 <Tincho> (as in people who is not otherwise deserving travel sponsorship)
19:49:04 <madduck> traditionally we have if requested and they have done work
19:49:32 <DLange> stuff over needs (like probably video) can be converted to more sponsorship (=later batches) or other needs that arise
19:49:39 <bremner> but I think it looks bad to not guarantee at least as much attendee travel sponsorship as volunteer.
19:49:47 <Tincho> bremner: I think lucas wants attendee sponsorship be one of the most important items
19:49:54 <DLange> it is
19:49:56 <madduck> volunteers are attendees, and who looks?
19:50:07 <bremner> Tincho: yes, that's why said this minor issue leads to a main conflict
19:50:14 <madduck> heck, even we have problems figuring out the numbers…
19:50:17 <marga> I'm not sure where this order came from
19:50:27 <bremner> or at least a main failure of communication
19:50:33 * madduck raises hand if I may say something here
19:50:38 <bremner> I'm done
19:50:38 <Tincho> I am not sure we want to sponsor them. does anybody have a rationale?
19:50:54 <bremner> I do, but madduck is talking.
19:50:54 <marga> 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 <madduck> Tincho: it's a nice way to give back to those who have donated time to make it happen?
19:51:01 <madduck> bremner: go ahead, I can wait
19:51:09 <bremner> ok
19:51:40 <bremner> 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 <Tincho> bremner: right, I agree on that
19:52:13 <RichiH> marga: non-attendee-volunteers?
19:52:14 <Tincho> but it is not really clear what we are talking about
19:52:18 <Tincho> it is orga
19:52:22 <Tincho> on-site volunteers
19:52:35 <Tincho> (that have no other relationship)
19:52:38 <Tincho> or what?
19:52:57 <marga> RichiH, not involved in Debian, not involved in DebConf outside of their on-site volunteering
19:52:58 <bremner> 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 <bremner> right, marga says what I mean
19:53:27 <madduck> so, i have a proposal, having thought about this some
19:53:31 <bremner> ok
19:53:49 <madduck> if we agree that teams should be able to allocate funds to sponsor (some of) their volunteers
19:54:05 <madduck> then I think this should be made a separate budget account
19:54:16 <madduck> and if we agree
19:54:30 <madduck> that the teams fund (a) those who are needed and (b) those in need
19:54:38 <madduck> then I think it would be reasonable to say that
19:54:50 <madduck> this is something we should ensure as early as possible
19:55:01 <madduck> so my proposal, and this is actually marga's original idea, is that
19:55:07 <madduck> debian commits X to the budget
19:55:19 <madduck> and this X is allocated to this budget line
19:55:34 <madduck> all the other (optional) sponsorship funds
19:55:38 <madduck> then come out of regular income
19:55:44 <madduck> </proposal>
19:56:01 <cate> What was wrong on last DebConf? What are we correcting?  We are overcomplicating things.
19:56:17 <bremner> madduck: ok for me.
19:56:42 <madduck> cate: only for budget, and I can tell you that budget wants more detail, rather than less.
19:56:44 <lucas> what does it solve if that funding comes from Debian rather than regular income? I don't get it.
19:57:06 <marga> The uncertainty.
19:57:06 <madduck> lucas: we can commit it at bid acceptance time
19:57:19 <madduck> people know way before the first sponsor pays that they will attend
19:57:26 <madduck> which should drive their motivation too
19:57:30 <marga> 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 <cate> madduck: is just that I think with -pa hat, and really I find complex, and I hope we should sponsor nobody :-)
19:57:49 <lucas> ah, you mean for future DebConf editions?
19:57:52 <madduck> and dc16 will be even earlier than we were, so… but still. it just makes sense to me.
19:57:55 <madduck> lucas: yes.
19:58:33 <cate> 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 <Tincho> 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 <bremner> Tincho: we're talking about EUR2000 for all teams. I think they will prefer to spend on accomodation
19:59:52 <madduck> Tincho: that's something that will need to be learnt
20:00:12 <RichiH> bremner: just to make sure, you mean "each"?
20:00:23 <bremner> Tincho: in the past we have paid video team members to drive stuff
20:00:37 <cate> So my food and accommodation should come from the team budget, also if I'm a DD?
20:00:37 <marga> So, the proposal is: each team gets 2000 budget for funding its volunteers?
20:00:43 <bremner> RichiH: No, I said all, but feel free to ask madduck for more money
20:00:51 <cate> [as example]
20:00:59 <marga> Yeah, cate's question is important
20:01:02 <madduck> marga: maybe not one sum for all, but something to be determined for each team
20:01:14 <marga> I think this makes things unnecessarily complicated
20:01:17 <RichiH> bremner: ah, ok
20:01:23 <bremner> 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 <bremner> marga: well, we're somewhat committed to the concept, via summit.
20:01:52 <madduck> 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 <marga> bremner, but not necessarily splitting the budget lines
20:02:05 <madduck> this is a purely organisational question: we *need* those people, so we should remove all doubt that they can come
20:02:12 <marga> I thought that we had agreed that the evaluation of the volunteers would be done by each separate team
20:02:16 <madduck> this is all assuming that they *want* it
20:02:28 <marga> (i.e. infra would talk about video volunteers, pa about front desk volunteers, etc)
20:02:39 <cate> ok
20:03:00 <marga> madduck, ok, in that case I think we should talk about them as orga or staff and not as volunteers
20:03:18 <bremner> 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 <marga> 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 <madduck> marga: fair enough. I had not made that distinction.
20:03:51 <madduck> so yes, staff needed for the conference or who have already done a shitload of work
20:04:02 <madduck> they should come out of a separate budget line
20:04:04 <madduck> backed by debian
20:04:07 <marga> ?
20:04:10 <madduck> so that we can assert it ASAP
20:04:19 <madduck> and this budget line
20:04:25 <bremner> I disagree a bit with the latter, but I'm happy to let team leads decide
20:04:28 <madduck> gets made available (split among) the teams
20:04:38 <bremner> I don't like "reward" money very much.
20:04:39 <marga> We have the money for that, we don't need the Debian backing.  If you are talking about the future... Maybe
20:04:47 <madduck> yes, future
20:04:58 <marga> I'd prefer to concentrate on DC15 for this meeting
20:05:09 * madduck goes back to his corner
20:05:13 <marga> How much money are you proposing is reserved for staff?
20:05:14 <madduck> sorry, I got overexcited.
20:05:15 <DLange> so what do we need to get this year's budget approved by .. what marga says
20:05:31 <madduck> marga: right now: 15k, which is what I understood lucas would def. be willing to commit.
20:05:32 <bremner> marga: I proposed EUR2k, as mentioned
20:05:44 <bremner> uh. communication failure.
20:05:52 <madduck> we don't have to use the 15k!
20:05:52 <marga> bremner, that's not nearly enough to bring in all the DebConf staff
20:06:02 <DLange> so lucas: can we have 15k from Debian which we'll very, very likely repay?
20:06:18 <madduck> to make sure that core staff can attend?
20:06:36 <tassia> but most of debconf staff would be funded anyway, caus ethey have outside debconf contributions, right?
20:06:47 <bremner> yes.
20:06:56 <marga> Yeah, I'm finding all this invisible virtual lines very confusing
20:07:05 <tassia> so why not using all the same pool and just prioritizing those people
20:07:14 <tassia> they would come first in the line
20:07:38 <marga> I agree with tassia, I don't think how drawing these distinctions help for core-orga people, that we NEED there
20:07:43 <madduck> tassia: so we can give them signals before the rest of the data arrive
20:07:46 <tassia> but spliting with arbitrary numbers seems to me an unnecessary complication
20:07:54 <madduck>20:07:56 <lucas> 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 <marga> lucas, yes
20:08:27 <bremner> in my opinion people are mixing up two groups
20:08:47 <tassia> it also makes things harder cause we don't have very well defined roles in debconf
20:08:57 <RichiH> 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 <bremner> 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 <bremner> that line is easy to draw
20:09:18 <bremner> it is already drawn, in summit
20:09:31 <tassia> bremner, but debconf is debian
20:09:36 <marga> By the "Organizer" field?
20:09:40 <marga> Or how?
20:09:44 <madduck> 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 <tassia> if the person is a long term debconf contributor, than he/she is a debian contributor
20:09:59 <Tincho> yes
20:10:16 <DLange> 20 mins left
20:10:18 <Tincho> we are talking about people that merely ask for sponsorship because they will do on-the-ground work
20:10:19 <bremner> marga: by the "I am primarily applying as a volunteer button"
20:10:19 <madduck> tassia: I don't think that's necessarily true.
20:10:46 <cate> e.g. many accompanying people ask to be volunteers and to have some costs removed
20:10:47 <lucas> 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 <RichiH> madduck: debconf's primary purpose is to serve debian
20:10:50 <marga> 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 <RichiH> so that's basically non-uploading
20:11:04 <bremner> marga: yes. as I have said 20 times in this meeting
20:11:12 * bremner is becoming mildly annoyed.
20:11:16 <marga> bremner, that's what makes this so very confusing
20:11:25 <madduck> RichiH: that's too abstract and not on http://www.debconf.org/goals.shtml
20:11:45 <bremner> well. we are spending the whole meeting talking about EUR2K. This is not a good plan.
20:11:48 <marga> 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 <bremner> core-orga people will be funded via regular bursaries
20:12:08 <marga> bremner, it's 2k for you, 15k for madduck, and I actually don't see the benefit in either.
20:12:10 <bremner> the fields are designed for that
20:12:19 <marga> Alright.  So, let's back up a little bit
20:12:38 <marga> 1) core-orga people will be handled by bursaries, from the normal budget
20:12:49 <bremner> ack
20:13:09 <DLange> 2) special teams fund their needed people from their budget allocation
20:13:15 <marga> 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 <bremner> marga: ack
20:13:44 <marga> And the question is, how much money we allocate for these volunteers and how we prioritize them?
20:13:45 <bremner> DLange: there is a pooled line for all teams, but ack
20:13:46 <cate> Are core-orga dc16 people who are not Debian contributors in pool 2)?
20:13:55 <madduck> cate: yes
20:14:01 <cate> madduck: which team?
20:14:20 <madduck> cate: local team.
20:14:49 <bremner> so, we may need more money in pool 2, I don't think that's a problem
20:15:08 <bremner> marga: is there a (3) ?
20:15:28 <marga> maybe 3) How much money should go into 2) ?
20:15:40 <madduck> 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 <marga> You proposed 2k.  I think that's too low to actually be significant
20:16:09 <bremner> marga: OK, it was based on travel only.
20:16:25 <bremner> madduck: you want to put food and accomodation into that number?
20:16:26 <marga> Yes, even then. It's like 4 people?
20:16:39 <madduck> bremner: yes.
20:16:41 <bremner> marga: historically we have not funded many people this way.
20:16:51 <marga> Ok.
20:17:01 <tassia> madduck, do we have local team the budget?
20:17:17 <bremner> 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 <madduck> tassia: I don't understand the question.
20:17:32 <marga> #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 <madduck> except for the "from the normal budget" part, but whatever.
20:17:58 <tassia> madduck, sorry, I think I misunderstood
20:18:11 <marga> madduck, that's what we just agreed to, sorry.
20:18:21 <marga> I'd like to change the subject slightly
20:18:33 <marga> #topic Debian backed sponsorship funds
20:18:50 <madduck> #info madduck wants to re-asses the core-orga and backed sponsorship budget post-dc15
20:19:13 <madduck> sorry
20:19:35 <marga> 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 <madduck> but this is for the future; let's do this another time, marga
20:19:59 <lucas> +1
20:20:01 <madduck> it is not relevant to dc15
20:20:03 <marga> But it can still be for today
20:20:11 <marga> It was mentioned that the current budget for travel was small
20:20:17 <madduck> i'd much rather talk about approval of budget and how to move from here
20:20:18 <marga> i.e. 30k EUR is probably not enough
20:20:32 <madduck> For the record, 30k EUR matches previous years quite well
20:20:43 <madduck> the actual usage. please see my latest reply to lucas.
20:20:44 <marga> Would it be possible to have 30k EUR as Debian backed, and 15k EUR extra?
20:21:22 <bremner> I read lucas' email as almost an open offer of travel sponsorship if we make a case for it.
20:21:37 <madduck> right, on top of what's budgeted
20:21:40 <RichiH> i think we should let lucas say what he meant :)
20:21:44 <bremner> ack
20:21:56 <madduck> marga: the 30k do not include a cent from debian, so…
20:22:15 <marga> madduck, well, I was adding 15k extra
20:22:24 <lucas> 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 <marga> lucas, sorry, I'm having trouble parse that
20:23:05 <RichiH> same
20:23:32 <lucas> mmh
20:24:00 <bremner> I read it as 30K+as-needed for bursaries to spend on travel
20:24:05 <DLange> pls try again and differentiate into Debian and Debconf e.V. funds
20:24:14 <lucas> the DebConf incomes would cover for expenses of 30k€ of travel sponsorship and the accom sponsorsip at the current level
20:24:33 <lucas> that's only DebConf e.V. so far
20:24:48 <DLange> correct, agreed and budgeted like that
20:25:00 <lucas> the above 30k€ would not include group (2) above (DebConf-only contributors)
20:25:48 <DLange> o.k., that's an (internal) shift that may or may not increase overall "required" travel funds
20:25:58 <lucas> 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 <madduck> 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 <marga> lucas, that makes sense but makes it very hard to come up with a budget
20:26:43 <lucas> madduck: right, sorry. DLange's fault :-)
20:26:55 <madduck> nobody's fault. just making sure everyone knows.
20:26:57 <DLange> yes, but we understood each other regardless
20:27:04 <DLange> thanks for the correction still
20:27:13 <bremner> marga: budget for 30K. We know to ask for more if we need it
20:27:13 <tassia> I need to go offline now
20:27:17 <tassia> I
20:27:21 <marga> ok.
20:27:25 <tassia> I'll check logs later
20:27:30 <marga> Alright, then let's move on
20:27:31 <bremner> o/
20:27:33 <madduck> marga: i could work this into a budget under two conditions
20:27:44 * marga waits for conditions
20:28:12 <madduck> (1) debian would commit those 30k (or let's call it X) before bursaries have data
20:28:27 <madduck> (2) chairs and DPL would approve the budget
20:28:37 <marga> Well, that's my next topic :)
20:28:43 <madduck> (and long before registration opens in the future)
20:28:46 <marga> #topic Process for getting approval of the budget and moving on
20:28:49 <lucas> what does it mean "debian would commit those 30k"
20:28:52 <lucas> ?
20:29:16 <madduck> 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 <madduck> i.e. allocated and possibly earmarked funds
20:29:43 <madduck> and you'd say this e.g. in October ;)
20:29:55 <marga> Right, so this is for DC16, not DC15.
20:29:57 <madduck> the earlier the better anyway
20:30:06 <madduck> well, for dc15 it would mean: now.
20:30:21 <bremner> but we don't need money from Debian?
20:30:23 <lucas> madduck: what problem are you trying to solve?
20:30:27 <marga> 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 <fil> 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 <madduck> bremner: we can always make use of more money.
20:31:07 <madduck> bremner: in sensible ways.
20:31:30 <bremner> ok, but please answer lucas. what problem are you solving?
20:31:54 <madduck> how to put the above into the budget
20:32:13 <madduck> this is all just followup to the last topic
20:32:37 <DLange> 30k from Debcon e.V/SPI/debian.ch -> travel for Debian contribs only
20:32:38 <lucas> fil: for DC15, Debian provided a loan early in the process. that's not a problem.
20:32:56 <madduck> DLange: please: don't worry about where the money is kept.
20:33:17 <RichiH> lucas: the point is more that if we know we can sponsor at least X travel, bursaries can act more quickly
20:33:19 <DLange> I was trying to answer your "how to put it into the budget question"
20:33:20 <lucas> madduck: Income: Debian contribution to travel sponsorship ; Expense: additional travel sponsorship from Debian
20:33:22 <bremner> madduck: as I understand it, 30k goes into the budget.
20:33:32 <RichiH> that being said, i don't think bursaries are blocked right now
20:33:40 <lucas> RichiH: why?
20:33:53 <bremner> for the record, I'm fine with lucas funding model for bursaries
20:34:02 <RichiH> lucas: cause we know we have X; no matter from what source
20:34:12 <lucas> RichiH: the very nice thing about bremner's magic plan for bursaries is that it's independent of the amount requested
20:34:14 <madduck> i dream of the day that treasury can do treasury and accounting can do accounting.
20:34:16 <fil> lucas: ah, fair enough -- sorry for the noise
20:34:38 <lucas> RichiH: s/requested/available/
20:34:40 <RichiH> lucas: it matters for the cutoff in bremner's plan
20:34:53 <RichiH> but if bremner is happy, i will just shut up
20:35:43 <bremner> so back to marga's question, what is actually blocking us?
20:36:20 <madduck> budget approval.
20:37:05 <lucas> 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 <madduck> it's already updated. the only change required to my knowledge was 1k to invited speakers.
20:37:41 <bremner> madduck: update "worst case" for 30k travel and new platinum?
20:37:42 <madduck> or did you commit thos 30k now?
20:37:54 <madduck> bremner: platinum as soon as I wrote the invoice.
20:38:05 <madduck> there is no worst case income scneario
20:38:08 <madduck> only status quo
20:38:24 <lucas> 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 <madduck> can bursaries create those lines within the total budget later?
20:39:11 <madduck> or can we create sublines within totals later
20:39:23 <madduck> more fine-grained splitting without effect for the overall spending
20:39:30 <madduck> or does all of this need reviewal and approval?
20:39:44 <bremner> madduck: just the group 1/ group 2 split now?
20:40:06 <madduck> okay, bremner, I might ask you again after the meeting
20:40:15 <bremner> fine.
20:40:20 <lucas> well I thought bursaries would not deal with travel sponsorship allocation for debconf-only contributors?
20:40:26 <madduck> 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 <madduck> can we please have a timeline/deadline for this?
20:40:42 <bremner> lucas: yeah, just with the budgeting
20:41:51 <madduck> 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 <marga> madduck, it requires the chairs to approve first
20:42:24 <madduck> oh yay bureaucracy
20:43:11 <lucas> madduck: I'll take a look tomorrow for sure, and can approve at most 24h after chairs.
20:43:27 <madduck> so chairs by next tuesday and you by march 20?
20:43:47 <madduck> i mean, if there is stuff to discuss left, please bring it up???
20:44:15 <bremner> madduck: in your current status quo budget, what is the travel sponsorship amount?
20:44:35 <bremner> because I saw 15k in the last version and I don't think that will fly
20:45:09 <lucas> bremner: 30k€ currently AFAIK
20:45:11 <madduck> bremner: it was 30k in both cases
20:45:37 <madduck> but last night i reduced it by 15k since lucas committed 15k in case we don't meet target
20:46:18 <bremner> and now we more or less meet the target so forget that whole thing?
20:46:53 <madduck> sure, but this is a discussion that happens *every* year
20:46:58 <madduck> and I just want it solved
20:47:06 <madduck> I mean, budgeting isn't rocket science
20:47:25 <bremner> much harder.
20:47:25 <madduck> getting ahead of myself here
20:47:33 <DLange> well, we have a solution and committment from lucas
20:47:47 <madduck> so lucas committed 30k earmarked as per scrollback?
20:47:47 <marga> So, madduck you'd send the budget to the chairs tonight, to lucas as soon as that is approved?
20:47:52 <bremner> madduck: no.
20:48:08 <bremner> this what I am trying to clarify
20:48:50 <bremner> you say you have 30k in the budget, covered by dc15 income.
20:48:55 <madduck> yes
20:49:12 <bremner> ok, and if you need a loan to get things started, can we deal with that seperately?
20:49:35 <madduck> i don't need a loan
20:49:46 * madduck is confused
20:49:55 <bremner> so why the repeated request for commitment from lucas?
20:50:04 * bremner is also confused.
20:50:06 <madduck> i am trying to figure out what needs to be changed in the budget
20:50:31 <madduck> right now, the only changes i gleaned are (a) invited speakers +1k and (b) split the travel budget in two lines.
20:50:51 <DLange> correct
20:51:04 <bremner> yes. well, I think the platinum sponsor made the hard decisions go away.
20:51:09 <azeem> ceterum censeo video-team budgetis esse delendam
20:51:20 <bremner> also that.
20:52:03 <lucas> bremner: the platinium sponsor, and the data about past years (thanks!)
20:52:20 <DLange> call it a wrap?
20:52:23 <bremner> OK. So everything is great? group-hugs and beer?
20:52:27 <madduck> lucas: you could have trusted that the budget didn't include random numbers, but bremner did help me a lot too.
20:52:34 <madduck> i have two more things
20:52:41 <bremner> about dc15?
20:52:42 <madduck> one for meeting
20:52:50 <madduck> about video team and infrastructure
20:53:00 <madduck> i didn't get any feedback from them
20:53:04 <bremner> crap. yeah.
20:53:07 <madduck> so the numbers in there I consider *my* insurance
20:53:09 <DLange> too early unfortunately
20:53:22 <madduck> i.e. I made them *high* to avoid problems later on
20:53:29 <DLange> for infra we really need a plan and I don't even have the site layout yet
20:53:40 <DLange> madduck: and that is the sane thing to do
20:53:41 <madduck> but I would like to ask the teams to provide me with some details about their own budgets
20:53:42 <RichiH> you won't get infra numbers tonight
20:53:43 <RichiH> sorry
20:53:53 <madduck> before they ask for significant money
20:54:01 <madduck> not needed tonight
20:54:04 <RichiH> modulo chidlish drama: i have no numbers
20:54:20 <RichiH> i tried my best, i failed, that's that
20:54:21 <madduck> but I won't feel comfortable handing out money without another level or two of detail
20:54:33 <madduck> we can work it out
20:54:38 <RichiH> handing out is in the future
20:54:39 <madduck> over the next weeks, that's fine
20:54:50 <bremner> #info infra numbers are high as insurance
20:54:50 <madduck> the way I see this whole thing is
20:55:09 <madduck> once the budget is approved, treasury is responsible for the funds
20:55:14 * azeem is concerned Wouter seems to think 10k is a reasonable amount
20:55:21 <madduck> and where a budget line is clear, that responsibility is transferred
20:55:25 <RichiH> bremner: well, i also need some of that money for personal vices, gambling, and drugs
20:55:36 <madduck> but where budget lines are unclear, treasury *has to* back themselves up
20:55:36 <RichiH> but i think madduck wanted to create an extra item for that
20:56:13 <cate> in future video needs a special fund, so that they could do ammortisation. I don't want to assist budget discussion at the DebConf they need to change hardware
20:56:41 <madduck> Tincho, tassia, moray: can we please agree on a deadline by when I can have your thumbs-up on the budget? Do you have any points you know already need addressing?
20:57:02 <Tincho> I know video is a problem
20:57:13 <madduck> cate: yes, and I think that could actually be done within Debian
20:57:24 <bremner> madduck: maybe push the latest version?
20:57:28 <madduck> because you need a constant set of accounts for ammortisation/depreciation
20:57:49 <madduck> bremner: how do you want me to split the 30k between the two new lines?
20:58:02 <madduck> cate: but in general, I think video team should be renting more
20:58:14 <madduck> rather than having our own stuff with all the logistics involved
20:58:20 <madduck> every debconf city has video rentals
20:58:29 <madduck> AV equipment rentals
20:58:31 <bremner> madduck: thinking.
20:58:34 <marga> So, we are approaching the 90 minutes mark
20:58:36 <madduck> and that's *far* easier to budget
20:58:37 <marga> I think we are done?
20:58:42 <tumbleweed> we will presumably rent AV
20:58:59 <cate> madduck: renting is complex. You need much more stuffs and learn and fix and backups
20:59:00 <madduck> marga: i would really like a commitment on a date to get the budget approved
20:59:04 <madduck> somethin to work towards
20:59:06 <DLange> can we add a #agree line for the budget approval process
20:59:11 <Tincho> madduck: another thing, is that the conf dinner shows as a biggish item... I don't remember past costs, but 11k is substantial
20:59:20 <DLange> important for logs etc. yadda, yadda. Pls.
20:59:41 <madduck> Tincho: last year was 12k USD without drinks
20:59:59 <madduck> Tincho: dc13 was similar. Again, I made sure that this is not completely out of line.
21:00:08 <Tincho> wow. ok
21:00:09 <cate> Tincho: I think we see 50$/person on past debconf [with food, band, etc]
21:00:20 <madduck> the 11k include drinks and we are considering options to remove alcohol and have that be self-paid.
21:00:23 <OdyX> 40 € per person is not surprising
21:00:38 <madduck> OdyX: we have 27,90/person all you can eat/drink right now
21:00:43 <madduck> incl. beer and wine
21:00:43 <lucas> Tincho: did you forget the famous boat trip discussion? :)
21:00:45 <Tincho> ok, I shut up
21:00:45 <madduck> not transport though
21:01:19 <madduck> one day maybe i'll be able to submit a budget and you guys will just assume I've done my homework.
21:01:33 <madduck> anyway
21:01:36 <OdyX> lucas: did you forget the famous DC13 leftover money? :)
21:01:57 <bremner> madduck: it's not about trust. It's about the fact that budgets encode _all kinds_ of important decisions.
21:02:07 <bremner> at least for me.
21:02:16 <lucas> OdyX: most of the budget discussion was before my time :)
21:02:40 <madduck> bremner: yes, the fact that expenses went up by 1k and one line was divided in two after today's meeting, maybe it can be noted that I didn't try to preclude those decisions?
21:03:14 <fil> madduck: renting video kit that all works together as a system seems less straightforward than one might hope, so it seems like a good idea to have some kit that is known to work together, rather than spending lots of time debugging the setup -- my knowledge is possibly out of date though -- maybe it's all easy these days (I somehow doubt it)
21:03:16 <bremner> madduck: of course not.
21:03:21 <RichiH> lucas: but you missed so much fun
21:03:22 <lucas> madduck: I wonder if all the historical data gathered should be in a tab in the current budget? for future reference?
21:03:29 <bremner> madduck: anyway, let's talk about it in person some time.
21:03:33 <madduck> fil: yeah, I was afraid that would be an argument.
21:03:45 <madduck> lucas: read my reply to your last mail on the list
21:03:50 <RichiH> fil: yes, that's one of the larger issues
21:03:58 <madduck> at one point in time I was motivated to provide a proper financial plan for dc16
21:04:19 <madduck> e.g. DC16 forecast vs. DC15 forecast and DC15 actual
21:04:23 <madduck> all in one
21:04:32 <madduck> the data were *not* available to do this for DC15
21:04:51 <madduck> I force all my startups to do this from year 2, and they hate me for it, but it's *sooo* useful.
21:05:37 <madduck> but for dc16, I really hope that chairs & DPL will come together *much* earlier in the process and decide what the max. amount of money would be that Debian would be willing to allocate to DC16.
21:05:46 <madduck> and communicate that.
21:05:57 <madduck> and then I hope that for DC16, we don't need to have most of this discussion of today again.
21:06:04 <madduck> marga: I am done. ;)
21:06:22 <lucas> by DC16, we will have a Debian fundraising team, and the DPL will just allocate a budget for the whole DebConf organization.
21:06:34 <marga> Alright
21:06:36 <madduck> easy to say with 39 days of DPL hat left
21:06:36 <marga> #endmeeting