Re: [Debconf-team] Before opening the registration with Penta...
Moray Allan dijo [Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 01:02:20PM +0100]:
> > - Debian roles - I'm including the following, mainly aiming at getting
> > numbers for statistics (nothing should be decided upon them):
> > (…)
> > Do you agree with this? Am I missing anything? Should I squash any
> > two (i.e. uploading and nonuploading DD)?
>
> I don't see the sense in separating those. Both mean "Debian member",
> and separating them risks it sounding like we think one is less good
> than the other.
>
> I would suggest mentioning "Debian contributor" as the catch-all, e.g.
> "Other Debian contributor"
My main reason for doing this is that we like to deaggregate numbers
for final reports and the like. As we were up to DC11, the numbers
made very little sense. So, maybe we could add a text saying that no
discrimination is to be done based on this...?
> Holger wrote:
> > "Otherwise involved in Debian" would probably be interesting to have split
> > more... artist, translator, legal supporter, dc12 localteam :)
>
> It would be somewhat interesting, but I don't see that it makes sense
> to divide up all these categories here. If we want to know about
> that, it should be another separate question, as it doesn't make sense
> to ask about this split only for "other", not also for DDs. And, if
> we have that, it should probably also multiple selections -- you can
> be a DD and an artist and DC12 local team.
Well, answering to Holger here, the reason "DC12 local team" is not
listed is because it is a DebConf role :) Besides that, yes, I'm
missing an "other" line. Yes, it's hard to find a proper cutoff line
for roles to display (i.e. artist, translator...) - The ones I
suggested are as far as (I think) we can get without being too
ambiguous. Including Holger's suggestions would require the field to
accept multiple selections, as you say. But the main idea is to avoid
mixing Debian and DebConf roles (even being DebConf part of Debian
proper ;-) )
> Gunnar continued:
> > - DebConf roles: We _will_ use these for deciding some stuff. Am I
> > missing anything? Is there anything that should not be there?
> > (…)
> I'm not sure it's worth splitting "organizer" vs. "volunteer" here --
> we never really defined what that split meant, and it was only ever
> really used for t-shirts, while for the last few years everyone just
> got a "staff" t-shirt.
People will shy away from being an organizer if they want to be told
what to do without a fuller involvement. We usually address volunteers
as organizers (i.e. they have voice and vote when we are discussing
anything), but the word implies more committment IMO.
And yes, you can be a volunteer, a sponsor and a press person - And
you can even be accompanying a DebConf participant! But I don't think
that will be too much of an issue. In fact, I think the "press"
category will not be used too much, if at all. But it does not hurt.
> > - Participant categories: This depends on getting some logistics
> > sorted out mainly WRT food and lodging. I think we should offer a
> > scheme similar to what we used in NYC:
> > (…)
> > Obviously, we need to set the numbers for professional and
> > corporate. And we have to do it FAST (that is, before registration
> > opens if possible!)
>
> Right. Remember that it's much easier to decrease the numbers later
> than to increase them, so it's better to over-estimate the costs (at
> minimum, the maximum we might pay accommodation and food for the
> person) for now than to under-estimate them.
Right. So I'll set US$1300 and US$650.
> As Holger says, we might (though I hope not) end up not being able to
> sponsor food and accommodation for everyone; if nothing else, we
> should keep the fields split so that we can partially un-sponsor if
> needed. But I think in the past some people *have* chosen sponsored
> accommodation only (not food), anyway, where they wanted to eat with
> the group some of the time but were happy to pay directly for that.
Right, I'll add the comment to the form. We should later check on the
specific logistics.
> > - Available accomodation options. Local guys, given we are staying on
> > three hotels, do you think there should be anything we offer to
> > choose from, or should we just let luck decide who gets which kind
> > of accomodation? The most basic options are what we had last year:
> > - Regular room
> > - I will arrange my own accomodation
>
> "Regular room" makes it sound like everyone gets a single room, so
> perhaps e.g. "I want to stay in the DebConf block booking".
Humm... I would have problems parsing "DebConf block booking" :)
Anything clearer?
> I remember why we have the "Corporate" registration category to allow
> people to pay more than their own costs, but can someone remind me why
> we started making pay-just-for-my-direct-costs an option in the
> registration stage ("Professional") instead of doing it directly by
> options for Food/Paid food/No food, Accommodation/Paid
> accommodation/No accommodation?
>
> Previously the "Professional" fee has, as Gunnar says, covered one
> attendee's fraction of the food and accommodation costs, though if
> it's meant to be "neutral financial impact on DebConf" then it ought
> to also cover the same fraction of all other costs as well (including
> food, but also venue etc.) -- if it did that, there would be more
> logic to making it a single overall option.
>
> With the current set of choices, some people seem to get confused,
> e.g. thinking that by attending DebConf and choosing "Professional"
> they are making an overall donation to Debian, rather than just not
> imposing as many costs.
>
> I speculate that we might get more people choosing the higher payment
> option -- paying for food/accommodation and additional donation -- if
> it was presented separately from choices of paying for food and
> accommodation. (If we want to leave the choices in the places they
> are, we should at least add some text explaining things better where
> the registration options are presented.)
Right. Well, Penta's style does not make it very natural to add this
kind of comments... and it can be a bit too much. But one paragraph
with this information can surely be added. The best part, it can also
be added later on :) So, please think about a proper wording.
Reply to: