Re: [Debconf-team] bursaries questions for summit (URGENT)
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:04 AM, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> 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.
Ah, a canary. Good thinking, that :)
> 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).
Agreed.
> 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?
I think what I had in mind with option 1.5 is what you want to express
with option 1.
Given all this, option 3 seems to be the one that could be improved
upon, but I could not find exact wording, either.
Richard
Reply to: