Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> writes: > > Nitpick: "absolutely unable to attend" implies not being able to pay > for it at all; I feel an option like "while I could in theory pay for > this, the financial sacrifices can not be justified at the moment" in > between the two above. Or maybe rephrase the above two a bit. Indeed, that's exactly the intent. If one checks "absolutely unable to attend", doesn't make the list of sponsored attendees, and still shows up, one should expect to have some explaining to do. I would dearly love for the middle two options to be as unambiguous, but so far we didn't manage it. I don't think we want to add more buckets to the self-assesment, because I think will make the actual ranking process worse (e.g. because I choose need level 1.5 unstead of 2, I get funding and you don't, even though it's all very subjective and fuzzy and we could have easily swapped). I'm open to specific wording suggestions. It seems tough to come up with changes that don't make things worse according to some fraction of community, but I may be missing something obvious. I don't think changing option 2 to "unnacceptable sacrifices" helps, since then we have to ask, well, it if's so unnacceptable, I guess that's option 1, isn't it? d
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature