Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp Accomodation - Bed selling and professional fee
Le jeudi, 17 janvier 2013 18.54:43, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> On 17/01/13 15:27, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > I think all these three ideas are terribly wrong: we would be using our
> > "DebConf" privileges to push insider goals: why would "put Penta into
> > retirement" give a single room but "released Wheezy" not? As I understand
>
> Can you just help me to understand where I went wrong: which part of my
> communication suggests that anyone would _not_ get appropriate
> accommodation, and the release team in particular?
Nothing suggested that. But you initially wrote "single room as a reward" and
now you're writing about "appropriate accomodation" wich are two different
things: all "LeCamp" rooms do provide "appropriate accomodation" [0]. So what
people get for their money is a measure of comfort. I'm firmly against using
accomodation "quality" as a rewarding measure, that's all I'm saying.
[0] Arguably besides the big dormitories for some people.
> How does the travel sponsorship differ from the room allocation in
> DebConf13 though? Don't we have finite limitations in each case - beds
> for one, budget for the other?
It is different because IMHO we grant travel sponsorship to _bring_ people to
the conference but you don't _need_ to be in a single room ("better"
accomodation) to be a worthwhile conference attendee.
> Did I suggest that was the optimal way to allocate accommodation?
No, indeed not. You proposed ideas, I do find them wrong and try to explain
why.
> In
> comparison, are you saying that giving the better beds to the people
> willing to pay is significantly better than giving them to people who
> make a long term improvement (e.g. replacing Penta)
Yes, that's exactly my point. Judging the "value" of the long-term involvement
[1] is a very risky and error-prone exercise which _will_ cause frustration if
we try to allocate rooms categories based on its outcome.
[1] Add to that equation the fact that some people have their "Debian time"
paid by an employer…
> > I think we should handle that as case-by-case "special requests", be open
> > to these and avoid any bureaucracy involving defining a set of
> > criterias, etc.
>
> So where I wrote "on request", you agree that is much the same thing as
> where you wrote "special requests" and we are in agreement on this point?
You appended to that "on request" a list of constraints ("without any
prohibitive charges") and criterias ("medical condition, …") which I think are
unneeded: these will be special cases and must be handled as such.
> The only thing that is not clear yet is how we make sure these "special
> requests" can actually be fulfilled when (…)
The point of "special-casing" is that we don't, IMHO. This means that if John
Doe comes late with such a special-case request and there are no rooms
anymore, then we can either talk to people already booked in such rooms to see
if something is manageable (room switch, category change, …) or tell "no
sorry" to said John Doe. That means we should invite people with specific
requirements to come talk to us early; that's all.
> Would you suggest that we give these people a deadline
> (e.g. 30 June) to make special requests and keep some of the rooms with
> bathroom in reserve up to that deadline or some alternative process?
No, we should IMHO not add any bureaucracy or any specific process; only write
something along these lines in the annoucement: "people with specific
requirements due to their condition are invited to talk to whatever-
alias@debconf.org as soon as reasonably possible".
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: