<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Russell, Jonathan,<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/09/17 09:47, Jonathan Woithe via
linux-aus wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170922234701.GB19996@marvin.atrad.com.au">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 01:22:39AM +1000, Russell Coker via linux-aus wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree in principle. Sponsoring things that teach kids about technology is a
good thing. Sponsoring such educational events for kids that are only mostly-
free is OK as long as there is a good amount of free content. An event that
has Scratch, electronics, and Minecraft isn't tainted because of Minecraft
being involved. But an assurance that they won't say "now that Linux
Australia has given us money we can buy more Minecraft licenses" would be
good.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm happy to stipulate that BuzzConf will spend <i>no</i> money on
Minecraft licences :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170922234701.GB19996@marvin.atrad.com.au">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hypothetically speaking if there were only 10 kids involved then at $500 each
it would not be good value for money. But if there were 50+ kids then $100
each might be reasonable, if there were 100+ then I would endorse it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
We have allocated 50 children's tickets for the event, and expect to
sell them all at this rate. The $100 per child would be based on the
$5k sponsorship, so would include facilities, as well ad hardware.
If LA only sponsored the hardware, it would drop to an average of
$20 per child (more specifically $32ish for 30ish children).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170922234701.GB19996@marvin.atrad.com.au">
<pre wrap="">I like the idea that LA's money should not effectively go towards the
purchase of closed products, although this is not an entirely
straight-forward condition to enforce.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
My personal philosophies agree entirely, that LA's money shouldn't
be used on proprietary costs. The lower value of funds I'm seeking
would cover the cost of the open source hardware that kids will be
taking away. The higher value would include the same, plus the hire
of items such as tables, chairs, A/V for the presentations.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170922234701.GB19996@marvin.atrad.com.au">
<pre wrap="">If a grant from LA allows the organisers to cover the cost of the open
materials required by the workshop it does effectively free up funds
obtained from other sources for other things - which might be proprietary.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
In terms of the cost of the hardware for the kids tracks, if we do
not secure funding, we will have to charge parents. LA's support
here wouldn't free up funds.<br>
<br>
In terms of the increased cost of hire to run a second track to fit
in the number of workshops we have for kids, if we do not secure
funding, then we will have to choose between cancelling some of the
the workshops, or making a loss. That's the risk with any conference
though. LA's support here would only free up funds if we make a
profit. We're not on track for this yet, given our current budgets.<br>
<br>
Out biggest costs are rent (i.e. tents, equipment, venue space),
utilities (i.e. internet, power), and business costs (i.e.
insurance). These businesses probably use proprietary software, but
I can't think of any financial investment we make in supporting
proprietary technologies for the purposes of educational components
of event.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>