RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: Discountsrequiring al

["Donald Smith" <donald.smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This leads to a question – how are we handling the breakdown of registration codes for the curated talks?

 

Example,

 

I have curated two 25-minute talks with 1 speaker each.  So my assumption is each speaker gets a 50% registration code, correct?

 

I have curated two 25-minute talks.  1 has 1 speaker and 1 has 4.  So my assumption is that one speaker gets a 50% registration code, and the other 4 get a 12.5% registration code.  Is that also correct?

 

In long talks where there are 2 speakers – if one speaker is dropped to proceed with the registration, does that speaker get a %100 discount code and the other waits?

 

-          Don

 

 

From: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: December 17, 2008 10:27 AM
To: scottr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: Discountsrequiring all speakers to sign

 

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who can count in binary and those who can’t.

 

“Knuckles” is ready for the Holidays!

 

From: eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of scottr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:22 AM
To: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
Subject: re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: Discountsrequiring all speakers to sign

 

that's three ways ...

:)

---

From: "Bjorn Freeman-Benson" <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:20 AM
To: "Kevin McGuire" <Kevin_McGuire@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: Discounts requiring all speakers to sign

Kevin,
We understand your perspective and I'll answer this in two ways:

First, we've been doing the agreements this way for a while and haven't seen any negative consequences. Thus I would say that the evidence does not support your opinion.

Second, it is important from a legal perspective that we get people's e-signatures before they speak. In the past, we've had difficulty with people not signing their agreements. Peer pressure is one of the main mechanisms that open source projects use to enforce their rules and thus my choice of peer pressure in this case is consistent with other uses of peer pressure in Eclipse-land.

Third, there's an easy solution for authors whose co-authors are more corporately delayed: remove those other co-authors until their legal departments can return a verdict and then re-add the co-authors at that time. In the meantime, the less delayed co-authors will have signed and can use their discount coupon to register.

- Bjorn

Kevin McGuire wrote:

I strongly feel we should remove this restriction of all speakers signing before one can register.  One signature, one registration.

P.S. Nothing is preventing co-authors from registering - the only constraint is registering at a discount/free. For long talks, the need-all-signatures constraint only delays the free registration: those who are paying can register as soon as they want.

--
[end of message]