Re: [netdev01] registration inconsistency

Re: [netdev01] registration inconsistency

[Jamal Hadi Salim]

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

Re: [netdev01] registration inconsistency

[Johannes Berg]

On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 08:12 -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

> > 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.

I think a reply message would be good so it lands with those people who
might have gotten the original and misinterpreted it as well. Your
call :)

johannes

Re: [netdev01] registration inconsistency

[Richard Guy Briggs]

On 14/12/12, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 08:12 -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> I think a reply message would be good so it lands with those people who
> might have gotten the original and misinterpreted it as well. Your
> call :)

I totally missed that as well, but agree it should be clarified with a reply
and a news item on the web site as well as a change to the wording on the web
site.

> johannes

	slainte mhath, RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs               --  ~\    -- ~\             <hpv.tricolour.ca>
<www.TriColour.ca>                 --  \___   o \@      @        Ride yer bike!
Ottawa, ON, CANADA                  --  Lo_>__M__\\/\%__\\/\%
Vote! -- <greenparty.ca>_____GTVS6#790__(*)__(*)________(*)(*)_________________

Re: [netdev01] registration inconsistency

[Jamal Hadi Salim]

On 12/12/14 09:01, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:

> I totally missed that as well, but agree it should be clarified with a reply
> and a news item on the web site as well as a change to the wording on the web
> site.
>

Sounds reasonable to me.

cheers,
jamal