On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> wrote:
> If you do the latter, I think it's clear that you don't want any of the > individuals to have a conflict of interest My argument before was simply that we have by far a large enough supply of people who don't want travel sponsorship, so that there's no need to introduce extra problems (in which I include the incorrect perception of unfairness) by getting people who want it to vote on who gets it. -- although by saying that > you are of course biasing the sample towards affluence (or perhaps > disinterest in DebConf attendance). > There might be a problem on this side if you expect, say, 90% of attendees to be getting travel sponsorship. But since I expect the proportion to be fairly low (and to stay that way for the foreseeable future), I don't see a real issue compared to the risks on the other side. -- Moray
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
