Re: [Debconf-team] RFC: opening registration: questions for penta
Philipp Hug <debian@hug.cx> writes:
>>> * Food: :food_id "Am staying off-site and will provide own food"
> Is there a validation rule, which checks that this option can only be
> selected, if attendee is not staying at LeCamp?
As we have some flexibility with this I don't think we should make this
a hard rule. As suggested by Didier IMO it's enough if it's clear that
staying at Le Camp and not taking the Le Camp food will be difficult
(for the attendee).
>
>>> * 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.
>
> I think we need to explain what it means to chose no here, otherwise
> everyone will chose "no".
You mean it's not enough to explain it in the announcment mail? I'm fine
with adding more text directly in penta (or on a wiki page linked from
penta) if someone writes said text.
>
> e.g. we replace it with a selection: communal_accomodation:
> * I'd accept sponsored communal accomodation
> * I'd pay to get non-communal accomodation
> * I'd not come to DebConf, if only sponsored communal accomodation is
> provided
I'm fine with these questions. They might produce slightly more helpful
data for us. But in the end if people understand the question I don't
think it matters much.
>
>> 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.
> The fee is actually CHF10/day (+CHF10 for breakfast). If we lower this
> even more (e.g. make it free), I'd like to lower it also for the
> communal beds. They cost the same for us and I don't think we want
> people to camp just because of the price.
I'm fine with this (lowering the price also for communal beds). The
valid concern that was raised and I care about is to offer an option for
people new to Debian that would not get sponsored food and accomodation
but don't have the money to pay about 50 CHF/day (or even more). I
expect the number of people requesting this to be quite low. So I don't
see a problem wrt to losses for DebConf or our agreement with Le Camp
for 80% full board.
>
>
> Removal of paid upgrade from the accomodation options:
> I'm ok with removing it, if we replace it with a question about
> willingness to pay (like above)
I think the idea is to decide about this only after we gathered data
from the registrations.
Gaudenz
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: