On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:01:40 +0100, Moray Allan <moray@sermisy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, Richard Darst wrote: > >> Perhaps this should be fixed before sending the emails asking people > >> to fix stuff. > > > > we need to send this out _now_. 2 weeks reconfirmation period is already quite > > short. > > > > we can still check the db to see fields which got changed after the deadline. > > Well, it's somewhat unfair to send people what seems to be > confirmation that they got sponsored status, then take it away. And I > don't really see it as correct to give everyone who took advantage of > the bug sponsored status, if DDs themselves were already being refused > it! Are we actually refusing people at this point? Just to be clear, I "exploited" this bug -- mostly to see if it worked. I also mailed registration@ before I exploited it, so it's not like I did that to be sneaky. It wouldn't surprise me if most or even all the people who might want to exploit this bug and/or beat the deadline, are only interested for the same reason that I am, which is that they got bitten by penta's tendency to give the impression that one has set something, when one has not. So, if the people we're talking about are going to be given sponsorship anyway this year (since it doesn't cost us extra) and probably only ended up in this situation because the UI is bizarre, then is it really worth making a lot of fuss? Obviously, if there are and DDs that cave been blocked from claiming sponsorship late by this, perhaps fairness dictates that they be allowed it as well -- do we have many mails to registration@dc.o asking for mercy? I can of course set things back the way they were pre-bug if that helps at all. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
pgpxhgmvwm0rE.pgp
Description: PGP signature