Re: [Debconf-team] RFC: opening registration: questions for penta
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:
> Le vendredi, 12 avril 2013 21.54:20, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>> Sorry, I know this is quite late as this was supposed to be all wrapped up
>> today, but here is the draft proposal for the DC13 registration form:
>>
>> https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Orga/Registration
>
> There are some things things I'm not fully convinced of yet:
>
> * Food: :food_id
>> - Am staying off-site and will provide own food
>> - I request sponsored food (not available to pro/corp if possible)
>> - I wish to pay for food at the conference (25 CHF/day)
>
> I feel the current wording doesn't make it clear enough that the standard for
> people staying off-site should be to get (be it by paying or getting it
> sponsored) their food (lunch+dinner) at the conference venue: making the
> "offsite->ownfood" relation explicit hides the "offsite->venuefood" relation
> that should IMHO be standard. It also applies to some extent to
> "onsite->ownfood", which should stay the exception given the distance/time to
> shops.
>
> What about (reordering is intentional):
>
> - I request sponsored food (not available to pro/corp if possible)
> - I wish to pay for food at the conference (25 CHF/day)
> - Will care for my own food. I understand that there are no shops
> nearby.
Better make that "no shops and restaurants". Otherwise I think that's
OK.
>
> * Food preference: I feel that the word doesn't express strongly enough what
> we want to know, so I'd rather word it "Food restrictions". In my en_CH
> understanding, if someone says she has a _preference_ for vegan food, then we,
> as conference, can still give her meat without a problem, which is not the
> case with a "food restriction" (which also extends to allergies, etc). By
> making it a select-box for food restrictions, the first and standard option
> would be "none" then.
I defer that to the native english speakers.
>
> * I am not really sure that the questions set makes it clear enough what room
> category would the "sponsored accomodation" attendees get, but don't have a
> good proposal on how to solve it. Also, it's not really clear that "nights"
> include breakfast at the venue.
This will be explained in the announcment mail. The idea is that
sponsored participants can only choose this at a later stage when we've
gather enough information for them "I accept communal" question.
>
> * Transatlantic T-shirt sizes experience tells me that "T-shirt size" should
> probably be explicitated, but I really don't know how (gut feeling is that a
> US "L" is a European "XL").
If people feel like adding European or US to the size I don't care. In
my experience these sizes are only rough estimates anyway. So I'm not
sure if it matters much.
>
> * That's probably a separate discussion, but as some discussion have
> highlighted on IRC, 20 CHF/night for "no-bed" can be considered quite
> expensive [0]. I would be open to making a 2-4 CHF conference sponsoring on
> that option (as a new "extended budget" consideration), acknowledging that in
> many conditions, we would pay more to the venue for that possibility than we
> get from the attendee.
I'm fine with lowering the price of camping a bit. Or are you thinking
about also lowering the price of the communal beds? But for camping I
think we should be explicit that there is limited availability. And that
we don't promise anything yet. I also think this will only affect a very
small number of persons as most of those sleeping in these "beds" will be
sponsored.
I'll be on vacation and only irregularly read my mail until next Friday.
So don't count on me to make any changes to the wiki page.
Gaudenz
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: