On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Philip Hands
<phil@hands.com> wrote:
If you do the latter, I think it's clear that you don't want any of the
individuals to have a conflict of interest
My argument before was simply that we have by far a large enough supply of people who don't want travel sponsorship, so that there's no need to introduce extra problems (in which I include the incorrect perception of unfairness) by getting people who want it to vote on who gets it.
-- although by saying that
you are of course biasing the sample towards affluence (or perhaps
disinterest in DebConf attendance).
There might be a problem on this side if you expect, say, 90% of attendees to be getting travel sponsorship. But since I expect the proportion to be fairly low (and to stay that way for the foreseeable future), I don't see a real issue compared to the risks on the other side.
--
Moray