Philipp Hug <[email protected]> writes: >>> * Food: :food_id "Am staying off-site and will provide own food" > Is there a validation rule, which checks that this option can only be > selected, if attendee is not staying at LeCamp?
As we have some flexibility with this I don't think we should make this a hard rule. As suggested by Didier IMO it's enough if it's clear that staying at Le Camp and not taking the Le Camp food will be difficult (for the attendee). > >>> * I am not really sure that the questions set makes it clear enough what >>> room >>> category would the "sponsored accomodation" attendees get, but don't have a >>> good proposal on how to solve it. Also, it's not really clear that "nights" >>> include breakfast at the venue. >> >> This will be explained in the announcment mail. The idea is that >> sponsored participants can only choose this at a later stage when we've >> gather enough information for them "I accept communal" question. > > I think we need to explain what it means to chose no here, otherwise > everyone will chose "no". You mean it's not enough to explain it in the announcment mail? I'm fine with adding more text directly in penta (or on a wiki page linked from penta) if someone writes said text. > > e.g. we replace it with a selection: communal_accomodation: > * I'd accept sponsored communal accomodation > * I'd pay to get non-communal accomodation > * I'd not come to DebConf, if only sponsored communal accomodation is > provided I'm fine with these questions. They might produce slightly more helpful data for us. But in the end if people understand the question I don't think it matters much. > >> I'm fine with lowering the price of camping a bit. Or are you thinking >> about also lowering the price of the communal beds? But for camping I >> think we should be explicit that there is limited availability. And that >> we don't promise anything yet. I also think this will only affect a very >> small number of persons as most of those sleeping in these "beds" will be >> sponsored. > The fee is actually CHF10/day (+CHF10 for breakfast). If we lower this > even more (e.g. make it free), I'd like to lower it also for the > communal beds. They cost the same for us and I don't think we want > people to camp just because of the price. I'm fine with this (lowering the price also for communal beds). The valid concern that was raised and I care about is to offer an option for people new to Debian that would not get sponsored food and accomodation but don't have the money to pay about 50 CHF/day (or even more). I expect the number of people requesting this to be quite low. So I don't see a problem wrt to losses for DebConf or our agreement with Le Camp for 80% full board. > > > Removal of paid upgrade from the accomodation options: > I'm ok with removing it, if we replace it with a question about > willingness to pay (like above) I think the idea is to decide about this only after we gathered data from the registrations. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
