Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf13 accomodation/food/fees prices proposal
Hi Richard and team
Richard Darst <rkd@zgib.net> writes:
> This whole subthread about color names illustrates why people like me
> don't provide suggestions any more (which turns into a feedback loop).
> Moray has an excellent point, making things more obscure is going to
> lead to problems later. It would be best to make registration as
> obvious as possible, without needing to dig through layers of things
> to understand. Simplicity has been my overriding goal this year. Of
> course, right now it seems that technical beauty is better and thus
> discussing it won't help anything.
I completely agree to everything you said above. That said I would be
quit suprised if Didier would not also agree to it. What I completely
fail to understand is why this discussion has become so heated and
controversial. I'm quite lost with this and it leaves me behind very
frustrated. The only explanation I can find is that this is not really
about the category names, but about something else more important or
more emotional that no one has clearly named yet.
I see the initially proposed category names just as working titles.
There are good arguments to not use them to present the categories to
participants, but they are good enough for discussing the category
separation until someone comes up with better names. IMHO the discussion
should focus on the category separation, the prices and on how many
people should be put at maximum into the largest rooms.
I like the idea of having descriptive but short names. But as of now I
did not see a proposal that is unambigous enough, understandable to
non-swiss (ie not including the word "nordique") and short enough
(approx less than 30 characters per name). The "alternate short names"
on the pricing wiki page [1] are probably a good starting point for
this. So here is my proposal based on that:
* Camping
* Large sleeping-bag room
* Medium sleeping-bag room
* Medium room
* Sleeping-bag double room
* Small room
* Double room
* Single room
Two things might still be a bit problematic with my proposal:
- I did not find a good complement to sleeping-bag. Le camp calls this
"nordique" but as I found out this is a Swissism nobody else
understands.
- Large, Medium and Small may mean different things to different people.
But "2 to 20 person sleeping-bag room" seems too verbose (but if
others disagree I can live with that).
>
> I realize that sending this message may have a demotivating effect,
> but right now it looks like it is naysaying moray vs a highly
> organized local team. It's just that the rest of us are no longer
> invested since (in my case at least) the cost to benefit ratio is not
> worth it. I just wanted to clarify that other people support moray's
> viewpoints (not just here, but in general), and point out that DebConf
> general consensus is being lost as most of us have given up arguing.
> And now, it's too late to adjust team dynamics, so I leave it in the
> localteam's able hands to figure it out and make it work.
I'm not sure if I understand you right. Do you see the (preceived)
organizedness of the "local team" as a bad thing? What should actually
change to make the cost to benefit ratio better for you?
I think we are again falling into the local vs. global team trap we
wanted to avoid so hard. We have to overcome this together no one
can do that alone.
Gaudenz
[1] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Pricing
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: