Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2013-02-18 16:12:02
Size: 1533
Editor: NickBurch
Comment: List a few things from recent email threads
Revision 2 as of 2013-02-18 23:01:55
Size: 2035
Editor: NickBurch
Comment: Sponsorship paid via the ASF
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 12: Line 12:

Sponsorship - Some sponsors will want to pay the ASF, and not a producer. (That might be because the ASF is already in the system, or policies around giving to producer vs foundation). This has come up with NA and EU, and NA before that. We need to have the procedure for deciding if this is OK or not, and the rules for who generates the invoice + sorts out balancing payments clear in the contract. Needs to minimise treasurer work, and ensure it doesn't take too long to give sponsors the answer

This page will feed into the "Future Of ApacheCon" discussion at ACNA, and subsequent on-list work. It will be used to decide if we should do a future ApacheCon, and if so what form

Producer led - ApacheCon Europe 2012 has shown there is an appetite for larger events, especially if they're cheap for committers. However, we can't do something that size ourselves, we need a producer to do most of the work, our volunteers can't sustain that

ASF paid-for tickets - Contact should say that the ASF will be billed (for free) as a sponsor, given a handful of free tickets for ASF staff (eg the EA), and early bird rate will be available for those that TAC are funding

Speaker Support - Some speakers won't be able to come if quite a bit of support isn't offered. Strong community push-back when we suggested dropping support, but equally other conferences in our space have shown that some speakers will take support but don't need it. Hard circle for producer to square

Committers - Unlike some other communities, our committers will only gain from a slice of the talks, not most, and will spend a lot of time not in talks but instead hacking / discussing / etc. Some will come despite a high ticket price, but many need it to be cheap as they don't get enough from the talks they go to to justify a high cost

TAC - Need to lay out up front what TAC will/won't do, and what TAC needs from the producer. Also need to make the producer understand the value of linking up TAC timelines with Speaker acceptance up-front

Sponsorship - Some sponsors will want to pay the ASF, and not a producer. (That might be because the ASF is already in the system, or policies around giving to producer vs foundation). This has come up with NA and EU, and NA before that. We need to have the procedure for deciding if this is OK or not, and the rules for who generates the invoice + sorts out balancing payments clear in the contract. Needs to minimise treasurer work, and ensure it doesn't take too long to give sponsors the answer

ACNA13ProducerLedThoughts (last edited 2013-02-18 23:01:55 by NickBurch)