Open Stack

Mark's faster than me as usual - I was going to suggest the same :)

There's one other subtly to throw in which is the fact that the paid
ticket price need not be static - instead "name your price".

To me, this is a great way to get some opportunistic income, without
affecting the accessibility.

To Dave's point - I have actually had the opposite experience. Some
organisations really struggled with the concept of a free event
(TNSTAAFL style) :) There's also a lot of individuals within
organisations who do also make the case for payment, given the choice,
or just neglect to tell their managers it is free. There really is no
other sort of recognition, but people still do it anyway.


The important note I picked up is, if you do have a revenue raising
option, it can't be called "sponsorship" - since that implies corporate
approval of the organising body, or "donation" - which results in
various worlds of pain.


So, I think we should do something that looks like:

Ticket Information
==========================================================
Type                            Cost             Quantity
Attendance                      Free             _________
Attendance                      $____            _________
==========================================================

and just see what it gets us.

If it nets us $100, probably not worth doing again in the same way. If
it's $1000 or more, it becomes quite interesting.



Regards,



Tom

On 05/07/15 16:36, Dave Walker wrote:
> I've never worked with an organisation that would willingly pay for a
> ticket if there were free ones on the table, the ones often included in
> sponsorship deals are even used first.
> 
> Just the idea of splitting by those that 'can' expense it seems odd to me.
> 
> There must surely be some sort of other recognition?
> 
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Dave Walker
> 
> On 5 Jul 2015 7:57 am, "Mark Atwood" <mark.atwood at hp.com
> <mailto:mark.atwood at hp.com>> wrote:
> 
>     __
>     As a suggestion re free / paid registration: have tiered tickets,
>     like the Community Leadership Summit does.
>      
>     Having a free ticket vs a paid ticket would not grant more or less
>     access or privileges at the event, but gives the opportunity for
>     people who can expense a ticket to do so.
>      
>     -- 
>     Mark Atwood <mark.atwood at hp.com <mailto:mark.atwood at hp.com>>
>     Director of Open Source Engagement, Hewlett-Packard
>     +1-206-473-7118 <tel:%2B1-206-473-7118>
>      
>      
>     On Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 09:04, matt wrote:
>>     +1 on the no booths rule.
>>     -1 on paid registration, I think we need to be mindful of the
>>     smaller openstack deployers, their voice is an important one, and
>>     their access to the larger operations teams is invaluable to
>>     them.  I like the idea of local teams showing up because it's in
>>     the neighborhood and they don't need to hassle their budgeting
>>     managers too much for travel approval / expenses.  This is more
>>     accessible currently than the summits for many operators.  Let's
>>     keep it that way.
>>     -matt
>      
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-operators mailing list
>     OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>