On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:26:48AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> As I posted earlier, travel sponsorships were $12,000 out of a $29,500
> budget.
You don't seem to have noticed that I was saying we seem to have (at
least, on any spreadsheet I saw) accounted the accommodation we
sponsored differently from the travel we sponsored. Looking at the
last spreadsheet I have, which was from May, it looks like the
combination of the two scrapes about $12,000; but I can't be sure
because it looks to me like some people I know were sponsored aren't
listed there.
In any case, according to the docs I have, the travel sponsorships
including rooms were just under double the facitilies cost, and even
rather more expensive than the cost of the facilities plus the
remarkably expensive insurance. So it's undoubtedly true that a
conference that relied mostly on donated travel sponsorship could
run at a significantly lower cost.
Of course, this brings us back to Chris's point. What we actually
did in this case was get, for example, EnterpriseDB's sponsorship
twice: they not only paid for their own employees to come, but they
also gave us some money that allowed us to bring people who otherwise
would not have had travel sponsorship.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
