[Development] Qt Summit 2012 Registration is now open!

[quim.gil at nokia.com]

Ok. The system we have now was discussed and agreed in the [Marketing] list in a thread that lasted several days followed by a wait of more days until the Alpha was released. It's a system that works, takes little time to manage and is allowing us to get mew participants registered as we speaks.


Who can work on a better system? Please, go ahead and we will adopt it.


In the meantime I will handle manually and locally those participants not willing to submit their data.


In the meantime I'm for keeping the current registration open. I understand the theoretical concern but for this case and for the low sensitiveness of the data being gathered (mostly public) I don't see the point of stopping the registration process before having a replacement.


Is that ok?


--

Quim


On 4/12/12 6:39 PM Storm-Olsen Marius (Nokia-MP/Austin) wrote:

Quim,



I agree with André on this one. Google's terms and policies are quite complicated, and it's not right for the Qt Project to force anyone to abide by their terms. We need to stop using their spreadsheet and find other ways to organize the information you need to keep tabs on the Contributor Summit.



A simple highlight of one of the terms for Google Docs (underline, bolding and eliding by me) from http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ @ 2012-04-12 20:30:

“When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (…), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.”



--

.marius





> -----Original Message-----

> From: development-bounces+marius.storm-olsen=nokia.com at qt-

> project.org [mailto:development-bounces+marius.storm-

> olsen=nokia.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of ext André Pönitz

> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:34 PM

> To: Gil Quim (Nokia-DXM/SiliconValley)

> Cc: development at qt-project.org

> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt Summit 2012 Registration is now open!

>

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:44:36PM -0700, Quim Gil wrote:

> > On 04/11/2012 02:23 PM, ext André Pönitz wrote:

> > >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:01:13AM -0700, Quim Gil wrote:

> > >>Just to be clear: Nokia employees follow the same registration process,

> > >>like anybody else. Organizers too. Lars too. Me too. Everybody.

> > >

> > >If you say so...

> > >

> > >>http://qt-project.org/groups/qt-contributors-summit-2012/wiki

> > >

> > >There will be at least one person who is not even remotely amused

> > >about the prospect to have to enter personal data into some random

> > >document hosted at some third party site.

> >

> > Interesting. Can I ask what is your concern?

> >

> > Every time someone registers to some third party event s/he uses

> > some third party site.

>

> There seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the term "third

> party" here.

>

> In that what I consider a "usual registration process" _two_ parties

> are involved: A person who wants to attend an event, and the host of the

> event. The host typically promises to use the attendee's personal data

> only for the purpose of the event, to not pass it on to third parties

> etc, and the attendee typically trusts the host of the event to stick

> to the promise.

>

> The registration setup you choose for the summit involves a third

> party as "man in the middle" which neither the host nor the attendee

> has any business with, let alone controls in any way. On the

> contrary, by using the services of said third party one agrees to

> their terms and conditions, put into writing in several pages of

> legalese, not all of it harmless to the uninitiated on first sight.

>

> > This is no exception. Last year a 3rd party service was used as well afair.

>

> I don't really remember filling in a form hosted at google.

> But I admit that doesn't mean much.

>

> > The alternative would have been to use something within

> > http://qt-project.org - but what? We didn't want to bring more work

> > to Marius & co installing services and we actually are reusing as

> > much as Qt DevNet as possible,

>

> The alternatives range from a hand crafted web page on qt-project.org

> to using plain email and manual transfer into a database. Total effort

> for a 200 person event in both cases less than a day. And I'd rather

> volunteer to key in the data personally instead of spending the

> time discussing basic privacy concerns.

>

> > The personal data requested is mostly public anyway?

>

> ["mostly" perhaps. But even if so, it would not matter in this

> particular context. Availability does not imply the right to use it

> without consent, at least not over here.]

>

> > Also, if you send it to me via email guess what I will do:

> > store it in the same online spreadsheet [...]

>

> I would feel more comfortable if you could at least try to pretend

> that a "Qt Project community manager" acknowledges the existence of

> the concept of privacy, and does not feed personal data of members of

> the community into _anything_ outside the reach of the Qt Project

> without the consent of the person concerned.

>

> > [...] since that is the space used by the organizers and all

> > badges are printed from there.

>

> I can take care of a badge. No worries ;-)

>

> Andre'

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Development mailing list

> Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>

> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120413/06ba9195/attachment.html>