Mailing-List: contact apachecon-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=XHCVvi3cHxW8W3n1IaIslDfhilpV5aKLkwGUodwdNxziJExakqiMz0OWao7/SPSxYUrniwWr6iPlOTEMxpwPSu5rj+ar3vcYpGtJtzdIDF5tjvDIx0t9Lc6JqV/ERKSHrRg/tlFKNSsYSoss5BKi8q8LMzWYBlEqQSNyQoCMpKU=;
References: 
 <CAG_bHozAgoPyODQiXQ2aQpJJ3xq4Stus0FJSfwY1h3HW34mN1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5016C3BF.4030302@apache.org> <5016C5C4.8010104@apache.org>
 <78B6EA79-00EC-4619-8CF3-177D4D1E38A9@holdenweb.com>
 <5016DC8E.4010505@apache.org>
 <1343678234.51605.YahooMailNeo@web28906.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207302320530.20335@urchin.earth.li>
 <CAMDRyTdfSzBRgOFi34-bs81CMS-Yu9qBwJ_cZUbMEsFUgiLakg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1343763075.12654.YahooMailNeo@web28904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:31:15 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Reply-To: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: apachecon eu speaker subsidies
To: "apachecon-discuss@apache.org" <apachecon-discuss@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMDRyTdfSzBRgOFi34-bs81CMS-Yu9qBwJ_cZUbMEsFUgiLakg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 =0A=0A=0Athat's exactly how I meant it as well.=0A=0ASpeakers should get=
 a free conf pass, or at least get 1 free day per track they hold. =0A=0AAc=
commodation and travel have to be paid by themselfs. The standard travel as=
sistant rules apply.=0A=0ALieGrue,=0Astrub=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Messag=
e -----=0A> From: Donald Harbison <dpharbison@gmail.com>=0A> To: apachecon-=
discuss@apache.org=0A> Cc: =0A> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:06 PM=0A> Su=
bject: Re: apachecon eu speaker subsidies=0A> =0A> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at =
6:38 PM, Nick Burch <nick@apache.org> wrote:=0A> =0A>>  On Mon, 30 Jul 2012=
, Mark Struberg wrote:=0A>> =0A>>>  Folks, I know no single conference wher=
e the speakers have to pay for =0A> the=0A>>>  conference itself. That's ju=
st ridiculous.=0A>>> =0A>> =0A>>  There are quite a few out there. It's sta=
rting to look like some people=0A>>  are finding the idea normal, others ar=
e shocked, depending on what other=0A>>  conferences you've spoken at recen=
tly...=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =A0 The ride and hotel could be handled via the tra=
vel-help as we don't =0A> have=0A>>>  the budget of other big conferences -=
 but tickets must be included.=0A>>> =0A>> =0A>>  <change-of-hat>=0A>>  TAC=
 won't just carte-blanche hand out plane tickets to all speakers,=0A>>  sor=
ry. Typical TAC recipients are students, people out of work, people just=0A=
>>  starting out in work, people who work in very low paid sectors etc.=0A>=
>  There is a strict judging process, and giving lots of preference to=0A>>=
  speakers, above and beyond others, risks problems with our charitable=0A>=
>  status. Some speakers will get help, certainly, and many have been helpe=
d=0A>>  out in the past, but by no means can TAC fund them all....=0A>>  </=
change-of-hat>=0A>> =0A>>  Unless someone is able to find a hefty chunk of =
sponsorship down the back=0A>>  of their company sofa, the budget as it cur=
rently stands doesn't let us=0A>>  both comp speakers, and offer them free =
hotel accomodation.=0A>> =0A>>  So, we come back to the earlier question on=
ce more. For those people who=0A>>  won't be fully funded by their company =
no matter what, which is more=0A>>  important to you being able to come?=0A=
>>  * Would it be better for you two pay a couple of hundred euros towards=
=0A>> =A0  your ticket (say, something like half price), and get accomodati=
on?=0A>>  * Or would it be better if your ticket was completely free, but y=
ou=0A>> =A0  have to arrange and pay for your own accomodation?=0A>> =0A> =
=0A> +1 Ticket free/pay for accomodation. Risky to mix the two, IMHO.=0A> =
=0A> =0A>> =0A>>  We've had a few people already vote for the latter, but i=
s that the =0A> case=0A>>  for everyone? Which is the one we should be conc=
entrating on trying to make=0A>>  happen?=0A>> =0A>>  Thanks=0A>>  Nick=0A>=
> =0A>