Le lundi, 28 janvier 2013 12.38:02, Giacomo Catenazzi a écrit : > On 28.01.2013 08:14, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > * It is always assumed that attendees either get /both/ hosting and food > > sponsored or neither. > > I see two problems: > > One probably is only a "bad wording". There are three cases: sponsored, > non-sponsored, not-using-it. See local volunteers sleeping at home (and > also do not forget people with campers/vans, tends, etc.) It's probably a bad wording indeed. The "Pricing" page lists the costs separately and this impossibility to have either of both sponsored isn't reflected there AFAIK. > But also in general: on first DebConfs I tried to help DebConf, > partially offloading DebConf cost. Non-sponsored food was an affordable > cost for me, but also helping debconf finance (IMO). Usually I buoyed > weekly food tickets at the beginning of the conference. I could have > done a donation, but for me it seemed more natural to do in such manner. I think this is a matter of presentation. As you explain below, the wiki page takes the organizers' point of view, on purpose. My perception is that "sponsored accomodation and food" ought to be standard for most attendees at DebConfs. By publicising the costs and asking for donations (of the corresponding amount), we separate the questions of "being hosted and getting food" from "participating financially to DebConf" and allow rounded (-up or -down) donations without the need of invoicing too many people. > Possibly the herb team could choose only between sponsored/non-sponsored, > and let people to decide if they want to do a little financial help, paying > part of the expenses. Yes, that's what I envisioned. > And a sponsored people could pay for a better room (but he could not > help paying the food). That's the "sponsored" column of the first table and the third example in the latest. If you get sponsored accomodation but want a better room, you could then pay the monetary increase per night. > > * We moved the "nordique two-beds rooms" up to Copper category: this > > makes Copper a meaningful category for the most probable use for changing > > category: get a two-bed room. Similarly, we split Zinc in two, to make > > explicit that you can get a "two-bed" "sleeping bag" room in that > > category. > > BTW I still think that giving a category name is bad taste. Really! As I explained on IRC, we talked about that at the meeting yesterday and we all liked these names, that's why they haven't been changed. But I can agree that these names can be confusing (because they are names of metal, as are sponsoring levels). I propose to use colours, but please make a proposal. > I found complex and non-intuitive the way a person could financially > help DebConf (small amounts), without being a professional person. > > I think that we are forcing people to be full-sponsored (and I don't > like the donation, I prefer to pay partially my costs.). I guess we should bring this disagreement to a DebConf team meeting, but this work was based on the assumption that "conference fees" and "accomodation" were separated costs. > And I still don't like the >= on the categories. I don't understand that dislike either. These ">=" are only a way to split the rooms from https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/LeCamp/Rooms in various categories. Then how we present that on the website and the registration system is a different question: we should probably explicitely list which rooms are in which category (probably including pictures for each), but I would be opposed to having 57 categories (one per room) as that wouldn't bring any value to the decision IMHO. > I think that the proposal (in the form, not so much in the contents) is > looking the things only on the organizer side. Well, yes. That should come first I think. > I think we should reframe things and look more at the attendees side: > what they would like, how they could help us financially, etc. I think we first have to agree on the organizer's side before massaging these numbers towards the attendees view. That said, I also think the proposal is quite clear for attendees. The examples are quite meaningful use cases and I don't really see what we are missing here. > PS: so I still have the same problem/question of last mail. Could you > dare to answer (sponsored people paying good accommodation, categories > names, confusing category definition) (As a side note, I'd appreciate if you could use less confrontational verbs [I do perceive "could you dare to" as quite offensive] and point to (or copy) the original questions.) * "sponsored people paying good accommodation": This is addressed above IMHO: people getting sponsored accomodation can get a category upsell by paying the diff. * "categories names": This is addressed above IMHO. * "confusing category definition": I don't see them as confusing. The text, when related to https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/LeCamp/Rooms, puts every room unambiguously in one category. It's certainly possible to add cell colours once we have a color code for the categories. Cheers, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.