From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [netdev01] registration inconsistency Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:12:15 -0500 Message-ID: <548AE9AF.90902@mojatatu.com> References: <1418326801.15709.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <5489F9B2.60306@mojatatu.com> <1418375818.2470.0.camel@sipsolutions.net> <548AD48A.9080009@mojatatu.com> (sfid-20141212_124211_758846_FC6380B5) <1418387022.2470.26.camel@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev01@lists.netfilter.org, Brenda Butler , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Richard Guy Briggs To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]:54455 "EHLO mail-ig0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967578AbaLLNMT (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:12:19 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r2so1450436igi.0 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:12:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1418387022.2470.26.camel@sipsolutions.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/12/14 07:23, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 06:42 -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > >> For workshops, you should go ahead and invite people you want. >> If you want us to give codes to some people (means either they dont >> have to pay or get discounts) then ping bjb and/or myself. > > No no, I don't think any (many) people will need a discount. > >> I am not sure how we distinguish invited people vs not-invited. It >> would be nice to be able to do so. >> One way is to do what the IETF does; provide color coded badges? >> Also: >> Do you think we need to change the language on the web site >> to avoid any confusion? > > I think the confusion is that the CFP and the website say the conference > is going to be be 50% speakers and 50% invitation: "The netdev > conference this year is structured to be 50/50 by-invitation and talk > submission" > > Looking back at this, I think you meant that the *talks* were going to > be 50/50 like that, but some people have contacted me about that they > thought *attendance* was going to be like that. In fact I just glossed > over it and until now thought the same! > > If I'm right that you meant *talks* then I think you should clarify that > language and even send out a clarification as a reply to the CFP email. > I think i got it. Either a reply or we fix the CFP on the website. Ccing Richard. cheers, jamal