As we say welcome to a new year, we have a couple of updates to the finances and payment handling in PostgreSQL Europe, that will affect our members and attendees of our events.
First of all, PostgreSQL Europe has unfortunately been forced to VAT register. This means that most of our invoices (details below) will now include VAT.
Second, we have enabled a new payment provider for those of you that can't or prefer not to use credit cards but that still allows for fast payments.
In our conference feedback, we also asked for a number of things that are designed to help us decide what to do next year. The most obvious one, of course, being where the conference should be next year.
Without even reading the texts behind the truncated texts, it's obvious that this didn't help us very much. The only city that scored higher than the average was Vienna - and it's likely not a coincidence that this is the option that's geographically closest to Prague, so it's the closest one for most of our attendees. In general we have to declare this as a draw - all suggested cities seem to be equally popular. So no direct guidance from there. While we have nothing to announce yet, we have already started considering locations for next year - but it won't be announced until we know something for certain.
I forgot completely to close up the feedback system for our talks at FOSDEM and post the feedback to the speakers. My apologies to all speakers and others who were interested! Thankfully, Marc Balmer reminded me today and the individual ratings for different speakers have been sent off to them.
When it comes to the aggregated statistics, they look fairly similar to what we saw at PGDay. The number of speakers were much lower, and unfortunately so were the number of people giving feedback. But in the end, the results were fairly clear. I am especially happy with the level of knowledge in the speakers we attract. Let's start with the graphs:
Breaking down the details, I think this shows a great quality of our speakers:
Name | Speaker Quality | Votes | Deviation Simon Riggs | 4.8 | 6 | 0.4 Magnus Hagander | 4.6 | 5 | 0.5 David Fetter | 4.5 | 4 | 1 Heikki Linnakangas | 4.3 | 9 | 0.9 Dave Page | 4.2 | 10 | 1.0 Marc Balmer | 3.4 | 5 | 1.7 Peter Eisentraut | 3.3 | 7 | 1.0
And the level of their knowledge is even higher:
Name | Speaker Knowledge | Votes | Deviation Simon Riggs | 5 | 6 | 0 Magnus Hagander | 5 | 5 | 0 Heikki Linnakangas | 5 | 9 | 0 David Fetter | 4.8 | 4 | 0.5 Dave Page | 4.3 | 10 | 1.1 Peter Eisentraut | 4.3 | 7 | 1.1 || Marc Balmer || 3.6 || 5 || 1.7 ||
Even at the bottom of this list, the numbers are very good! Unfortunately, the fairly low number of votes give a high deviation at the bottom of the chart.
For next time, we'd really like to get more people to leave their feedback. Does anybody have a good idea on how to make that happen?