On 11/10/2011 11:35 AM, Nate Vack wrote:
> I think the idea is "if the preconference had a cost to attendees, its
> sponsorship money could be used to defer the cost of the rest of the
> conference for everyone."
Huh? You've completely lost me! What? Why? How? I have no idea what
you're talking about.
Again though, with complicated gymnastics involving sponsorships: If
under the present way of doing things we can still hold registration to
$150, then everything seems to be working just fine, and we don't need
to do anything else in order to get more sponsorships, right? We have
enough. Everything is fine. So why fix what ain't broke?
For some reason people keep proposing significant changes to how we do
the conference for reasons of getting more sponsorship money or using
sponsorship money in certain ways--- why, when we apparently get enough
as it is?
> One of the troubles with this is that the people who decide to sponsor
> a preconf have probably decided to do that explicitly; otherwise, they
> would have just offered a sponsorship in general.