Increasing the number of conference goers makes it possible to defray costs directly from conference itself thus
relyingless upon the sponsors.
Were you able to cover these issues from those other people who've run their own conferences?
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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