30 Sep
2025
30 Sep
'25
4:14 a.m.
Hi all,
We have a date for FOSDEM 2026: January 31st to February 1st
This means we also have a date for Summit 28: January 29th - January 30th
As the person who has (co)organized the last two summits I would like
to start a discussion on the next summit by asking a few questions and
floating some ideas.
• How did you like the format of the last three summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
• Do you have a concrete lead for some company or organization that
could provide us with a conference room for free in the city of
Brussels? I’m not asking for vague suggestions like "maybe someone
could try to reach out to xyz" I’m asking if you personally know
someone who has a key to a room.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year the 'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years (which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
cheers
Daniel
30 Sep
30 Sep
8:27 a.m.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for taking care of this.
Le mardi 30 septembre 2025, 12:14:04 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Daniel
Gultsch a écrit :
Hi all,
We have a date for FOSDEM 2026: January 31st to February 1st
This means we also have a date for Summit 28: January 29th - January 30th
As the person who has (co)organized the last two summits I would like
to start a discussion on the next summit by asking a few questions and
floating some ideas.
• How did you like the format of the last three summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
The organization was good and the event nice. But Thon EU is really a luxury
option in my opinion, and I would be fine with something less fancy.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year the
'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
One day feels too short to me. If the discussions end before the end of day
two, I think we should take the opportunity of having so many XMPP people at
the same location to work in groups of interests, as we have done in the past,
or to do a hackathon like we have done another year.
Sometimes discussions don't lead to concrete specs or code, so doing a draft
implementation while the discussion is still fresh in one’s mind sounds like a
good option.
Last year I had to leave early to prepare FOSDEM, but I would definitely have
stayed the whole day if I could, and would have loved some form of hackathon.
Also, some hard-to-implement things like moving to OMEMO:2 would be easier
with some of the best specialists present in the room.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years
(which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water)
While I appreciate the good lunch we've had, I, for one, don't really care
about a fancy location. What's important to me is being with other XMPP
people.
I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a
model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
Honestly, I clearly couldn’t come with such a fee to pay. It's already really
costly for me in terms of money and time (I’ve had a full day of traveling to
come, and the same of course to return).
I would rather not have the XSF dinner or eat cheap pizza than have to pay to
attend the summit. And even if I were eligible, I wouldn’t be happy with a
fee-waiver, as other people would need it more than me, and I would find it
unfair.
Note that I’m not sure that I’ll come this year anyway, it’s a general answer.
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and
efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
It's totally understandable that XSF has difficulties handling that. I'm
wondering what others have to say about your suggestion, or if it's possible
to find a cheaper location, and if not, how much it would actually cost per
person in the end. Again, I'm not even sure to come this year, so it's just an
opinion at this point.
cheers
Daniel
Best,
Goffi
9:17 a.m.
Hi,
the intent of my email was just to gather some general feedback and
vibes. I have no intention of responding to them individually but
Goffi is helping me to make some additional points that I find
important.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:27 PM Goffi <goffi(a)goffi.org> wrote:
I would rather not have the XSF dinner or eat cheap
pizza
I 100% agree with the sentiment. I would also prefer a good Summit
over Dinner. However the XSF hasn’t actually paid for dinner in a very
long time. So getting rid of the dinner doesn’t actually free up
budget elsewhere. If it ever came to this I would personally always
make the call to rather move the dinner to a everyone pays for
themselves model.
It's totally understandable that XSF has
difficulties handling that. I'm
wondering what others have to say about your suggestion, or if it's possible
to find a cheaper location, and if not, how much it would actually cost per
person in the end. Again, I'm not even sure to come this year, so it's just an
opinion at this point.
A less fancy hotel is not moving the needle significantly. I don’t
have 2026 numbers but a cheaper hotel would make it go from 250 to 200
or so.
The cheap option would be to find someone who can give us a room for free.
Honestly, I clearly couldn’t come with such a fee to
pay. It's already really
costly for me in terms of money and time (I’ve had a full day of traveling to
come, and the same of course to return).
[...]
than have to pay to
attend the summit. And even if I were eligible, I wouldn’t be happy with a
fee-waiver, as other people would need it more than me, and I would find it
unfair.
Yes I’m aware that "financial imposter syndrome" is a big risk that we
need to mitigate when moving to a fee waiver program.
Let me be clear: You absolutely deserve to be there and should have
your fee waived.
And we need to make this clear to other people as well (if we move to
this model). When I said "generous fee waiver" the emphasis was on
generous. And the example number of 10¹ was picked deliberately
because it represents roughly have the people who came last year.
cheers
Daniel
¹: The actual number would of course be decided upon by board and scam
or something. Not by me.
10:01 a.m.
Hi Daniel,
First, thank you for all your work on previous summits, and for starting
this thread early so that we can plan ahead.
Second, I will reply below with my XSF Treasurer hat on.
On 9/30/25 4:14 AM, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years
(which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
Another approach would be "pay what you can". I don't know the situation
on the ground because I haven't attended a summit in many years, but if
attendees know what the cost is then they might be willing to pay their
share, with the XSF picking up the expense for those who can't afford to
do so.
I agree with Goffi that unfortunately this could put some attendees in
an awkward position, but we could perhaps mitigate that somehow (e.g.,
assign a trusted third party for communicating about these matters).
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and
efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
The XSF did much better financially in 2025 because we directly asked
companies to become or remain sponsors, which several companies very
generously did. [1] If we can sustain this level of contributions, then
the summit should be affordable for us, especially if we can find a less
"fancy" meeting location, as you say.
Peter
[1] Many thanks to, in alphabetical order, Erlang Solutions, ProcessOne,
Tigase, and Tygrys for their sponsorship, and to Isode for their
significant sponsorship of the 2025 summit!
10:17 a.m.
I don’t have a lot to add here, other than that I agree with trying to do something, and
trying this seems reasonable to me.
/K
On 30 Sep 2025, at 11:14, Daniel Gultsch
<daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
Hi all,
We have a date for FOSDEM 2026: January 31st to February 1st
This means we also have a date for Summit 28: January 29th - January 30th
As the person who has (co)organized the last two summits I would like
to start a discussion on the next summit by asking a few questions and
floating some ideas.
• How did you like the format of the last three summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
• Do you have a concrete lead for some company or organization that
could provide us with a conference room for free in the city of
Brussels? I’m not asking for vague suggestions like "maybe someone
could try to reach out to xyz" I’m asking if you personally know
someone who has a key to a room.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year the 'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years (which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
cheers
Daniel
10 Oct
10 Oct
3:16 p.m.
Hi all,
We have a date for FOSDEM 2026: January 31st to February 1st
This means we also have a date for Summit 28: January 29th - January 30th
As the person who has (co)organized the last two summits I would like
to start a discussion on the next summit by asking a few questions and
floating some ideas.
• How did you like the format of the last three summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
• Do you have a concrete lead for some company or organization that
could provide us with a conference room for free in the city of
Brussels? I’m not asking for vague suggestions like "maybe someone
could try to reach out to xyz" I’m asking if you personally know
someone who has a key to a room.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year the 'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years (which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
cheers
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for taking the time to list the different possibilities available
for organizing the summit, and even more thanks for taking on the job of
(co)organizing it.
* I do enjoy the format of being together in a room that is both not too
cramped and not too big (one may argue that the thon rooms are a bit
big if we stay the same number). I do not care for the fanciness too
much (if I have to go to a water fountain to get water, I can live),
but having everyone get lunch at the same place, with enough options
to satisfy everyone.
* One day could feel too short in my opinion, we might involuntarily go
too fast on some topics if we feel rushed, which would be bad. I guess
having people hash out their list of topics before the event (and
completing it live) could provide a rough approximation of the
duration, but that requires even more planning, and it would feel
pretty bad to give up on a topic due to lack of time. There's no way
to predict the future though.
* Regarding the fee model, I can only speculate about other people’s
situation and behavior, but I fear it might make people hesitant to
go if it requires some administrative work to get a waiver, and of
course impostor’s syndrome might play a role. I myself am in the
middle of the scale: the total cost of going to Brussels is not a
rounding error on my budget, but if I can afford it, and having a
fee on top of that would make me hesitate¹; and I would rather not
rob the opportunity off someone who is in a worse financial
situation than me by requesting a waiver.
I do understand that there are constraints here that are out of our
control, particularly that sponsors are of course free to sponsor the
XSF or specific events at any time, which complicates organizing quite a
bit. Still, I am wary of the consequences such a decision could have on
attendance, which is already on a slightly downward trend if my memory
is correct.
Cheers,
Mathieu
¹: those are very different events, but having to pay the real cost of
the room per participant would make the summit just as (or more than)
expensive as, for example, the Chaos Communication Congress, for
reference (but shorter and without the flora).
4:47 p.m.
On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 11:14, Daniel Gultsch <daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
• How did you like the format of the last three
summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
Sadly I only made it to the last one, and it was good - but I'd have been
fine without the fancy lunch, to be honest.
The lunchtime *company* was great, though, as always!
• Do you have a concrete lead for some company or
organization that
could provide us with a conference room for free in the city of
Brussels? I’m not asking for vague suggestions like "maybe someone
could try to reach out to xyz" I’m asking if you personally know
someone who has a key to a room.
As you know, I'm working on various options, paid and otherwise.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year the
'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
I'd like to stick with 2 days if we can.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years
(which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
I'm entirely unconvinced that the Summit offers €250 worth of value to most
people.
I also think the value increases the more people who are there (at least to
me), and this especially includes relative newcomers and others who may
well not be able to justify a €250 fee, even if they can afford it easily.
(To be clear, the more people who are there /and also feel empowered and
encouraged to speak up/!)
If people cease to be able to come for free, then I firmly believe it
lowers the value for all of us.
Dave.
15 Oct
15 Oct
3:24 p.m.
Hello everyone,
this is coming late, but first of all, many thanks to Daniel for reaching out on this
topic early and elaborating!
On your four initial questions:
* I very admire everything, even if that's a luxury choice - because this event and
you all deserves it.
Though, I was not happy with the amount of money we spent vs. our actual total budget at
XSF (unfortunately).
Not ignoring that we had generous sponsors, but still it used to be a lot.
* No, unfortunately, I have not contacts. But may in Hamburg my employer could sponsor a
place.
* To answer the question of the daily well, I we can also crawl for potential agenda
topics and see how much we fill
a day and if the agenda is worth it or we could have a well organised online follow-up
(happy to help). But I admire
goffis suggestion much more spending time working or being together. It's valuable
time in my view.
** What could also happen is that we reduce interest to travel to Brussels for just one
day. Less people make the event maybe also less worth / more expensive.
* First of all, I think this is correct on the limited XSF budget and effort in the recent
years.
(And being member of the Board mostly in this time I also take responsibilty here and this
one reason why I won't apply
again for Board the next phase.) Still, I don't think raising a fee is the answer. To
be honest and expanding the perspective as Syndace (in chat said): We
don't need to meet (always and by hard) in Brussels; there are cheaper options for
sure.
Just out of traditions and failure to address the situation that would lead now to charge
people is not a positive development in my view.
That siutation would rather question to me:
** How is our sponsor engagement sufficient?
** Is this the right time and place?
** Where else could we maybe even have a better venue?
** If we find better can cheaper places, can we have more physical meetings?
** Do we need to be in Brussels by hard until we solve the financial situation, we should
go for less expensive places / cities?
Are we even sure at least 50% of the participants would be okay to pay a 250 / 150 EUR
fee? That would be 10-15 people according to the last years participation, right?
How many people would consider not even to pay 50€?
And yes to Peter & Matt (in the SCAM chat), sponsoring is something that needs to be
continued as we did for 2025. Hence, more in the
bank would make the discussion less pressing.
(Note: Also many thanks to Alex, Daniel, Matt for also sponsoring dinner and with their
time organising (please correct me if I am mistaken).)
In general, one may be interested in the disussion in the SCAM chat: scam(a)muc.xmpp.org
Thanks all,
Eddie
On 11/10/2025 00:47, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 11:14, Daniel Gultsch
<daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
• How did you like the format of the last three
summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
Sadly I only made it to the last one, and it was good - but I'd have been
fine without the fancy lunch, to be honest.
The lunchtime *company* was great, though, as always!
• Do you have a concrete lead for some company or
organization that
could provide us with a conference room for free in the city of
Brussels? I’m not asking for vague suggestions like "maybe someone
could try to reach out to xyz" I’m asking if you personally know
someone who has a key to a room.
As you know, I'm working on various options, paid and otherwise.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year
the 'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
I'd like to stick with 2 days if we can.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years
(which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
I'm entirely unconvinced that the Summit offers €250 worth of value to most
people.
I also think the value increases the more people who are there (at least to
me), and this especially includes relative newcomers and others who may
well not be able to justify a €250 fee, even if they can afford it easily.
(To be clear, the more people who are there /and also feel empowered and
encouraged to speak up/!)
If people cease to be able to come for free, then I firmly believe it
lowers the value for all of us.
Dave.
16 Oct
16 Oct
4:38 a.m.
Hi!
Many thanks for bringing this up early, and putting in all the work that
goes into this. It is highly appreciated.
I get that the summit is costly for the XSF, and I don't want to downplay
that: it's definitely a significant expense. But I don't think introducing
any kind of "people-that-go-to-the-summit-should-pay" model is a good idea.
It raises the bar for attendance, and I'm worried it would hit some groups
harder than others.
For example, people who can write this off as a business expense might not
think twice, but others, especially individual contributors or those coming
on their own dime, would be much more affected. Given that our attendee
pool already isn't all that diverse, I think this would add another filter
we really don't want.
As long as there's room in the budget (and we're not taking away from
something more important), I think the XSF should continue to cover it.
Keeping the summit accessible to everyone feels more valuable in the long
run.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 11:24 PM <emus(a)mailbox.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
this is coming late, but first of all, many thanks to Daniel for reaching
out on this topic early and elaborating!
On your four initial questions:
* I very admire everything, even if that's a luxury choice - because this
event and you all deserves it.
Though, I was not happy with the amount of money we spent vs. our actual
total budget at XSF (unfortunately).
Not ignoring that we had generous sponsors, but still it used to be a lot.
* No, unfortunately, I have not contacts. But may in Hamburg my employer
could sponsor a place.
* To answer the question of the daily well, I we can also crawl for
potential agenda topics and see how much we fill
a day and if the agenda is worth it or we could have a well organised
online follow-up (happy to help). But I admire
goffis suggestion much more spending time working or being together. It's
valuable time in my view.
** What could also happen is that we reduce interest to travel to Brussels
for just one day. Less people make the event maybe also less worth / more
expensive.
* First of all, I think this is correct on the limited XSF budget and
effort in the recent years.
(And being member of the Board mostly in this time I also take
responsibilty here and this one reason why I won't apply
again for Board the next phase.) Still, I don't think raising a fee is the
answer. To be honest and expanding the perspective as Syndace (in chat
said): We
don't need to meet (always and by hard) in Brussels; there are cheaper
options for sure.
Just out of traditions and failure to address the situation that would
lead now to charge people is not a positive development in my view.
That siutation would rather question to me:
** How is our sponsor engagement sufficient?
** Is this the right time and place?
** Where else could we maybe even have a better venue?
** If we find better can cheaper places, can we have more physical
meetings?
** Do we need to be in Brussels by hard until we solve the financial
situation, we should go for less expensive places / cities?
Are we even sure at least 50% of the participants would be okay to pay a
250 / 150 EUR fee? That would be 10-15 people according to the last years
participation, right?
How many people would consider not even to pay 50€?
And yes to Peter & Matt (in the SCAM chat), sponsoring is something that
needs to be continued as we did for 2025. Hence, more in the
bank would make the discussion less pressing.
(Note: Also many thanks to Alex, Daniel, Matt for also sponsoring dinner
and with their time organising (please correct me if I am mistaken).)
In general, one may be interested in the disussion in the SCAM chat:
scam(a)muc.xmpp.org
Thanks all,
Eddie
On 11/10/2025 00:47, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 11:14, Daniel Gultsch
<daniel(a)gultsch.de> wrote:
most
• How did you like the format of the last three
summits? (Renting a
conference room in a hotel with lunch provided (in buffet style) by
the hotel)
Sadly I only made it to the last one, and it was good - but I'd have been
fine without the fancy lunch, to be honest.
The lunchtime *company* was great, though, as always!
• Do you have a concrete lead for some company or
organization that
could provide us with a conference room for free in the city of
Brussels? I’m not asking for vague suggestions like "maybe someone
could try to reach out to xyz" I’m asking if you personally know
someone who has a key to a room.
As you know, I'm working on various options, paid and otherwise.
• Do we want a 1 day or 2 day summit? Last year
the 'official' part of
the summit was over after 1.2 days and had we known this we could have
probably managed to squeeze it all into one day.
I'd like to stick with 2 days if we can.
• If we do a repeat of the last two (three) years
(which i feel is
somewhat likely due to how difficult it is to find places that would
have us for free and because I’m under the impression that people like
the "fancy environment" with the snacks and the fancy bottles of
water) I feel somewhat strongly that we should switch to a model in
which every participant pays for their own seat (at per cost) and add
a fairly generous fee-waiver on top of it.
I’m very much in favor of keeping the Summit accessible.
(Socio)economicly speaking our community is very diverse. We have
people in our community who would not be able to come if they had to
pay the ~250 Euro the hotel charges us per person. But we also have
people in our community to whom this is a rounding error in the
overall travel+accommodation cost. (I have personally been on both
sides of this.)
The XSF notoriously doesn’t have a lot of money and efforts to change
this over the last 3 years haven’t been very successful. Switching to
a fee waiver model would allow board (or whoever) to set aside a fixed
amount and send x (where x=10 for example) applicants to the summit
for free.
I'm entirely unconvinced that the Summit offers €250 worth of value to people.
I also think the value increases the more people who are there (at least
to
me), and this especially includes relative
newcomers and others who may
well not be able to justify a €250 fee, even if they can afford it
easily.
(To be clear, the more people who are there /and also feel empowered and
encouraged to speak up/!)
If people cease to be able to come for free, then I firmly believe it
lowers the value for all of us.
Dave.
14
days inactive
30
days old
8 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Daniel Gultsch -
Dave Cridland -
emus＠mailbox.org -
Goffi -
Guus der Kinderen -
Kevin Smith -
mathieui -
Peter Saint-Andre