Sponsor packages slot and price voting

[vvatikiotis]

I'm starting this one since @apantsiop is running amok with work.

As per what we decided on our weekly meeting on Wed 5/12/2012: We vote for the sponsor packages number of slots and prices. For instance, @apantsiop and @chief proposal includes 4 packages with: 1slot x 12.000eu + 3x6.000 + 5x3.000 + 10x1.000.

We make our own proposal (or not) and we vote. This vote is not about what's inside each package, so plz no suggestions about the individual packages here. We just propose (or not) a slots/price combo and we vote.

Im not sure about the vote structure. Imo, 1 vote each. It's up to us.

Please, let's make this quick and efficient.

Vote ends at 12:00 Wednesday 12/12/2012.

Feel free to change/amend whatever is necessary, as per what the committee decided last Wed

[apantsiop]

Thanx mate! (was going to do it this evening). May I suggest that we discuss the issue on #28 so the voting issue doesn't get polluted?

[apantsiop]

At today's meetup we decided to give an extension to the voting. The subject has to be thoroughly discussed (on its own issue and on Wednesday) before deciding. So we are postponing it until next Sunday. Please, write your thoughts about the prices/slots of the packages on issue #28 because it will affect one of the most important aspects of the event: THE BUDGET!

[pagojo]

My proposal to be voted upon is that of

1 slot x 10K + VAT N slots x 5K + VAT K slots x 2.5K + VAT (all with 14 days payment terms, where N,K are open ended)

1 or 2 slots x ?? for the party (payment terms will need to be negotiated as is cost)

In any case a) the party sponsorship should be communicated at the sponsor brochure b) it will make me happy if we don't communicate the number of slots for the tier-2 and tier-3 levels.

[apantsiop]

Didn't have time to update the issue before new proposals start arriving, so doing it now :

We agreed yesterday to make our proposals about the package pricing and slots available and then vote. You may submit your proposal here (I was hoping this would be done by email so that I can gather them in one comment along with numbering for easy voting but @pagojo got here first. that's ok though. when we finish our submissions I will do it)

Proposal submissions are allowed until Friday night. Voting starts on Saturday and ends on Sunday (23/12).

We already have two other proposals that I will copy from yesterday's minutes when they go online.

[apantsiop]

OK. Here are the proposals :

1) @pagojo

1 x 10K N x 5K K x 2.5K

1-2 Party Slots

2) @nikosd

1 x 10K (3-6) x 5K N x 2.5K

(there was a thought about supporter tickets as well if I'm not mistaken) (correct me If I'm wrong)

3) @apantsiop

1 x 10K (3-6) x 5K N x 2.5K K x 1K

1 Sponsor for the Party

(it is basically the same with nikos's except that I want the smaller supporters to really "feel" like sponsors and the supporter ticket doesn't have that effect IMHO)

4) from the draft (originally proposed by @apantsiop & @chief)

1 x 10K 3 x 4.5K 5 x 2.5K 10 x 1K

Please, vote until tomorrow at midnight.

[fotos]

Don't forget to consult: THE BUDGET!

If you want to play with the numbers you can create your own (easily disposable and recyclable) copy at File > Make a copy.... If you do so, make your copy private (Sharing) or delete afterwards to avoid confusing the rest of the committee on which one is the authoritative budget.

[fotos]

After studying the budget, perusing other conference sponsorship packages and going through our requirements here is my vote (first one this time):

3) @apantsiop's proposal

If necessary I can also elaborate more on my rationale and also provide my numbers for (3-6), N and K, as well as general thoughts on our budget, but I will spare you the trouble on this critical time and hour!

[apantsiop]

If you don't want to "contaminate" the voting thread and you feel the need to explain your rationale you can always share your thoughts on committee@euruko2013.org. It isn't an easy vote as it isn't a simple issue, I would like to read what everyone has to say.

-- Apostolos Pantsiopoulos Software Engineer

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Fotos Georgiadis notifications@github.comwrote:

After studying the budget, perusing other conference sponsorship packages and going through our requirements here is my vote (first one this time):

3) @apantsiop https://github.com/apantsiop's proposal

If necessary I can also elaborate more on my rationale and also provide my numbers for (3-6), N and K, as well as general thoughts on our budget, but I will spare you the trouble on this critical time and hour!

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/54#issuecomment-11640722.

[teoulas]

I like no. 3 and prime numbers so my suggestion is: 1 x 10000 3 x 5000 5 x 2500 7 x 1000 the last one could very well be 11 :)

[apantsiop]

So you are actually making a new proposal :) OK I will bend the rules a little and add it as No 5.

[chief]

Καλησπέρα σε όλους! Ναι είμαι ζωντανός! :) διάολε τι γρίπη ήταν αυτή!!  @apantsiop μου επιτρέπεις μια μικρή παρέμβαση; Βλέπω ότι δεν θα τελειώσουν οι προτάσεις οπότε προτείνω το εξής. Δεδομένο ότι:

1. Ολοι συμφωνούμε στο πακέτο 1 να έχει ένα slot και να είναι της τάξης των 10_000
2. Υπάρχουν 2 στρατηγικές, μία με 3 πακέτα και μία με 4

Πιστεύω ότι θα μας διευκολύνει αν αποφασίσουμε πρώτα τον αριθμό των πακέτων (3 ή 4) και μετά το αριθμό (αν τελικά υπάρχει) των διαθέσιμων slots. Γιατί είναι κάπως ανοιμοιογενής η σύγκριση.

[apantsiop]

Too complex IMHO. If we spawn 2 new voting issues from this one things will get complicated. But If the other guys think we should do it, well, we could.

[vvatikiotis]

+1 for @pagojo. I elaborate on email.

(+1 for supporter tickets)

[damphyr]

+1 for @pagojo where N=3 and K=7 I'm also for sponsoring tickets (ticket cost of 150 with an unspecified number - essentially anyone who wants can buy a sponsor ticket and gets his/her name on the honor roll)

[fotos]

@chief it doesn't matter whether you have 3-4 packages if you don't also consider the cost of each package. This is a tough decision but it must be made in a single vote because you choose not only on the number of packages, but their costs as well and eventually you decide on the income column of the budget, given that tickets are more or less known.

So choose wisely. I don't think we can postpone the decision any more. Sorry.

[apantsiop]

Guys, you cannot make your own tailored versions of the proposed packages . I made an exception for Teo since it was in the morning but I can do it again. So @damphyr, you cannot assign specific numbers to @pagojo's proposal. If you want to vote for it you have to agree that you don't want fixed slots (after all this is what @pagojo wants, flexible slots :)). The same goes to @teoulas (i.e. if it wasn't your intention to create a new proposal but just support no 3 just tell me to withdraw it).

[apantsiop]

Also, I forgot to vote for my proposal :)

[nikosd]

I'm ok with any plan that has open (unpublished) lower slots and :+1: for 'supporter' tickets

[fotos]

@nikosd you are not helping out... choose one and vote please!

[nikosd]

@fotos when you vote you can be neutral you know... If it makes it easier I go for @apantsiop proposal then.

[fotos]

@nikosd you can vote neutral but not conditionally. You voted conditionally ("any plan that..."), which means you choose a few of the proposals and this complicates things. Thanks for clarifying your vote! :)

[apantsiop]

I think there has been a misunderstanding. N and K don't mean that we will decide later. It means that these packages get UNLIMITED slots. @pagojo introduced that notation and I followed it.

[apantsiop]

@teoulas informed me that he withdraws his proposal and votes for 3. Many people where having the same issue with N, K (= unlimited).

P.S. @teoulas, when you can verify your vote change, I don't want to be blamed for setting up the votes :)

[chief]

Sorry guys, I cannot vote this way. Too many proposals without crystal clear conditions (at least from all of us) with random values (without explanation) with no reason (without any master plan). This is the main reason I tried to split the voting proccess @fotos (please explain why we cannot delay a little bit this process which is very important in my opinion) and introduce a 2 step or maybe 3 step - if needed - procedure.

[apantsiop]

@chief because we went through this in the meeting?

[nikosd]

@chief : We have discussed this already during the last meeting and this is why we consider it final right know. I'm not sure if I will agree on delaying this. Do you have something very specific in mind?

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Giorgos Tsiftsis notifications@github.comwrote:

Sorry guys, I cannot vote this way. Too many proposals without crystal clear conditions (at least from all of us) with random values (without explanation) with no reason (without any master plan). This is the main reason I tried to split the voting proccess @fotoshttps://github.com/fotos(please explain why we cannot delay a little bit this process which is very important in my opinion) and introduce a 2 step or maybe 3 step - if needed

• procedure.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/54#issuecomment-11649948.

[chief]

@nikosd @apantsiop I explained above. I see random and very different proposals and I cannot compare em. Although I have worked on this issue with @apantsiop the situation becames too complicated now

Why one should vote @pagojo and not @nikosd proposal? What the difference? Can you explain why your proposal is better?

[chief]

@all Please show understanding for my nerves (I have 4 days to smoke) :) :)

[apantsiop]

Guys,

I am getting a lot of bad feedback from many of you about the N, K thing! And I can understand that it created some confusion. @chief also would like the proposals to have a rationale behind them when proposed.

If many of you think we can re-do the voting procedure until let's say tomorrow or the day after, it will NOT be such a disaster. After all the next meeting is on 2nd of Jan. AND it is a crucial issue and we must treat it as such. I would prefer if @gfotos changed his vote to what he really wants than stick to the one he chose because "we must get things moving".

It's not such a drag voting on a github issue after all, it only takes 1 min.

Please, reply on this e-mail ASAP if you feel we need to do this once more.

[teoulas]

Just confirming that I vote for no. 3. I was not present at the meeting you had, but I'm assuming that the concept is not to impose an upper limit on the 3rd and 4th tier packages.

[nikosd]

I don't see the point of redoing what we have already done. I would like a concrete suggestion from @chief regarding what he needs in order to vote. I have all the data I need since we have discussed it already. I'm feeling we are doing a meta-voting all the time by voting on what and when to vote. We can't move forward if every time someone misses something halts the whole procedure. Don't get me wrong @chief, I'm not doing a blame game or offense but I would like to know what are the data that we are missing in order to decide this and move forward by preparing the pdfs.

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Apostolos Pantsiopoulos < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Guys,

I am getting a lot of bad feedback from many of you about the N, K thing! And I can understand that it created some confusion. @chief https://github.com/chief also would like the proposals to have a rationale behind them when proposed.

If many of you think we can re-do the voting procedure until let's say tomorrow or the day after, it will NOT be such a disaster. After all the next meeting is on 2nd of Jan. AND it is a crucial issue and we must treat it as such. I would prefer if @gfotos changed his vote to what he really wants than stick to the one he chose because "we must get things moving".

It's not such a drag voting on a github issue after all, it only takes 1 min.

Please, reply on this e-mail ASAP if you feel we need to do this once more.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/54#issuecomment-11650293.

[apantsiop]

@nikosd we have to agree that it was kind of a bad voting.

@fotos, @teoulas and probably @damphyr misunderstood the UNLIMITED concept (K, N).

and now some of them are changing their votes and some don't (randomly, some might not even check their github account). So the voting so far - the truth being told - doesn't reflect our collective opinion on the matter.

[chief]

Νίκο δεν αναφέρομαι σε εσένα και προφανώς δεν θέλω να ρίξω το φταιξιμο σε κανέναν.

1. Η πρόταση μου για τα πακέτα είναι ξεκαθαρισμένη και αποκρυσταλλωμένη στην πρόταση 4.
2. Θεωρώ ότι η διαδικασία χωλαίνει μιας και δεν έχει ξεκαθαριστεί το Κ Ν σαν ανοιχτό άνω όριο και όχι σταθερές
3. Για να μην μπερδέψω την κατάσταση πρότεινα να το πάμε σιγά σιγά (προφανώς την μπέρδεψα περισσότερο) γιατί αντιλήφθηκα το (2)
4. Συμφωνώ ότι κάνουμε meta voting. Από την άλλη η διαδικασία που έχουμε επιλέξει είναι σκληρή και δύσκολη και απαιτεί πειθαρχία και ανάγνωση των πρακτικών.
5. Δεν έχω πρόβλημα να συνεχίσει η διαδικασία και να κλείσει σήμερα το θέμα. Ξέρω πολύ καλά τι θέλω και τι νομίζω ότι είναι το καλύτερο για εμας. Θα ήθελα όλοι να το αναλογιστούν αναφορικά με την σοβαρότητα του θέματος.

[pagojo]

All, delaying the voting since we cannot even use the voting result right now is not a big deal.

We must be able to make decisions when we have enough info to do so and before it is too late. Just like pilots do.

If a) some feel we should delay and if b) there is no impact progressing with the sponsor packages literature by doing so, then so be it and kets defer.

I am happy either way.

[nolamesa]

Hi guys! Sorry I am late into this, I was on my way to Volos :smile:

Regarding the voting: I will vote for proposal no 3 from @apantsiop. I also think lower level tickets are a cool option. I do not fully agree to have unlimited 2.5K packages but for the sake of sanity I am with @apantsiop.

[nikosd]

@pagojo what do you mean we can't use the result? Of course we can. We can start working on the official pdf with a blocking factor less... Am I missing something?

In any case, I say we count the votes and close the issue if the packages are clear to everyone. If not, clear things out and give one day more to those who need more info. @apantsiop and @chief can you take it and decide the status / next step?

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM, nolamesa notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi guys! Sorry I am late into this, I was on my way to Volos [image: :smile:]

Regarding the voting: I will vote for proposal no 3 from @apantsiophttps://github.com/apantsiop. I also think lower level tickets are a cool option. I do not fully agree to have unlimited 2.5K packages but for the sake of sanity I am with @apantsiop https://github.com/apantsiop.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/54#issuecomment-11650715.

[pagojo]

@nikosd I mean even if we decide tonight, will we begin the sponsor package preso PDF creation tomorrow? Probably not...

[nikosd]

I pull out :)

You have my vote and I'm ok with any of the suggestions.

Good night!

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM, pagojo notifications@github.com wrote:

@nikosd https://github.com/nikosd I mean even if we decide tonight, will we begin the sponsor package preso PDF creation tomorrow? Probably not...

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/euruko2013/committee/issues/54#issuecomment-11651345.

[apantsiop]

1st proposal : 3 votes (@pagojo, @damphyr, @vvatikiotis) 2nd proposal : 0 votes 3rd proposal : 5 votes (@apantsiop, @fotos, @teoulas, @nolamesa, @nikosd) 4th proposal : 0 votes

@chief, @dark5un didn't vote

Still, if you have strong emotions about the results and you can convince the committee that there are many of you (that means you have to talk/email it out first and send a message to the committee all together) you can still ask for a re-vote/change of voting scheme IMHO. If nobody does that at least until tomorrow then the current voting is valid.

Let me say one more thing. I myself have changed my mind a number of times on this one. It is a serious issue since it has to do with money. I was strict about it in the first place but after I heard some ideas about it from others I started getting mellow on some aspects of it and decided to propose a hybrid solution that could cover all of us. This is the reason I didn't vote the draft's proposal (which after all I took part in proposing it). Having a fixed number of slots for the upper packages and a flexible one for the smaller ones has many advantages and covers most concerns :

1. The top sponsors feel unique and "special" as was stated by many of us
2. I don't think that the smaller sponsors will feel a difference if they share the same place with 10 as opposed to 15 other sponsors
3. Many sponsors won't feel left out if the slots run out (they can get a lower package, there's room there)
4. We still can get it to work in a strict way i.e. if we decide on a hard limit for the smaller ones BUT don't announce it publicly then we can work the budget as @gfotos suggested (i.e. finite money resources, and by the way, this is the way I like it, too) and STILL be able to make a few extra euros (1-2 more sponsors) if the situation demands it. When the time comes and we are confident we don't need any more money, we can announce : "We have to announce that all our sponsorship needs for the conference have been met, so we will not be accepting any more sponsorship offers. We know that this limit was not mentioned in the sponsor's brochure for the last two packages but we feel that if we continue gathering money for a already covered would be unethical from our side. After all the purpose of the sponsorships was to raise enough funds for a successful Euruko and not make a profit out of it.". So, all I'm saying is, it is flexible but let's be strict privately.

So I suggest we accept the voting.

Next steps : We should target on the draft. There are two things there:

1. What the sponsor gets for his money
2. The intro/info texts

I propose we should do it like AMKE's doc. We have a starting point. Debate about it ON-LINE, or as comments (even better). Let's not have a voting for stuff like that, also. We can use logic and creativity and if someone feels strong about something then we can discuss it on the meeting.

At the same time I propose that we give the draft (as it is) to the Skroutz design team so that they can start working on it. By the moment they finish we will have the final texts ready and "merge" them to the final pdf.

(I want to note here that @fotos has an objection about that (he communicated it to me), he believes that we cannot perallelise the two and suggests that we should give the final doc for design only when we are completely done with it, I felt I needed to write that in case someone agrees with him)

[chief]

I am ok with @apantsiop comment. So 3rd proposal is ON I will try to speed some tasks in skroutz (I dont know yet what is going on with vacations etc.) Also I agree with Online Document / Same procedure as AMKE for intro/ info texts and actual sponsorship package.

[apantsiop]

I forgot that you were away for almost a week. Maybe @fotos can help you with that (pdf or site) since he was present in the last meeting.

[chief]

sure! My main concern is (a) if we have designers in skroutz now - holidays - and (b) what's the status of design theme and site.

For Design Theme: I gave instruction 10 days ago For Site: I am waiting for middleman and main theme (apart from splash page)

to be honest, our design team was fucking overloaded previous 15 days and I believe that this situation will gradually fade out to normal conditions the next days.

So, I will gather info, talk with fotos and inform u all. goodnight and thanks for the fish (also close this issue) :)

[damphyr]

Sorry guys, you're right I did not really grasp that N and K had no ceiling. For the sake of simplicity I'll go for 3 although I do think that even the third tier should be limited - but if you come late to the party then that's it.

(η αβαρία του Mac με έχει τσακίσει, δεν μπορώ να κάνω τίποτα σωστά :cry: )

[nikosd]

:+1:

[dark5un]

Sry guys, I was away this weekend but I am ok with the 3rd choice so we are good...

[vvatikiotis]

close?

[nikosd]

close?

[fotos]

Closing this issue. This was about the slots and not the content (as stated in the description) and we have already made up our minds on this issue. The PDF / brochure / leaflet is a whole different beast which we will handle this week, ASAP.

For the record, we voted for this proposal:

1 x 10K (3-6) x 5K N x 2.5K K x 1K

1 Sponsor for the Party