On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 01:31:39AM +0200, Moray Allan wrote: > Le vendredi 05 juin 2009 à 19:12 -0400, Richard Darst a écrit : > > You need to reply to this email within a week to be put back into the > > sponsored category. > > >From what you said, they never actually selected sponsorship, so it > shouldn't be 'back' here. (I'm not sure about saying it was a 'such a > prevalent problem' either, but that's more arguable.) good point, s/back// > > I propose to send To: all relevant attendees, cc'ed debconf-team. > > I'd suggest not making public the list of people who didn't bother to > check their status. bleh, of course. I would have done this even if I wrote too fast to say it... > > If someone has selected "Regular, I (or my company) will pay" for > > food, we are not providing a chance to fix that, are we? I wonder if > > the problem extends to the food field, too... > > It would also possibly become unfair at some point to let people 'trade > up' to sponsorship if they existed in Penta early enough, but not if > they just missed the deadline altogether.... Specific suggestions about what to do are appreciated... I think the compromise now is fair and a minimum. They have to have done *something* (a real attempt) in penta related to *dc9* to qualify. I guess I could leave this be and let others deal with it once we get much closer to time... but I don't think that would make it any easier. So, what do you all think? The decision is hampered by lack of knowing what people want... - Richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - lefschetz: up 122 days, 22:03 | http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature