On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Richard Darst <r...@zgib.net> wrote: > That would make that set of scripts need to look at logging schema, > which would be quite a modification as it is. I can try to make a > separate query to find these people and deal with them by some other > method.
Right, I didn't mean that it had to be part of the same script. Sending a separate mail on the topic would be actively better than having a couple more lines in the existing mail. > I guess the options are: > > (a) fix it now, revert all people who took advantage of it > (b) fix it now, do nothing about people who took advantage of it > (c) fix it now, do nothing about people who took advantage of it, make > an exception for DDs (since they were the only people who couldn't > take advantage of it) > (d) fix it now, make an exception for anyone who wants to register > sponsored even if they didn't register before deadline. > > (either way, our exception agreed to at the meeting yesterday would > stand separately from this.) > > I think (d) is too much, (a) is slightly less preferable for me than > (b) or (c), but mainly because I don't want to have to both make more > work and give bad news. See my other mail in this thread. I'd also note that anyone in the core DebConf target audience (so at the very minimum reading d-d-a mail) would have known about the deadline; it'd only be 'bad news' to people who don't read d-d-a mail or the website or our other announcements. Even if we'd entirely forgotten to lock the sponsorship fields, it would still be perfectly fair to enforce the deadline. I don't have time to dig out details, but already in the past I remember us needing to check 'who had this status on the relevant date' to get an accurate list. -- Moray _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
