On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:04 AM, David Bremner <da...@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 _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
