Re: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 23 April 2018 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE86812DA3F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJubcLAI32_x for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22CBC126FDC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g14so10559276pfh.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YI5KfBzd3OdUm+b1DMWSEkbLOPh643xrmh9RIlv68rI=; b=tuziB8R1LgTYE9sbLmB6+wfvHlO35h15uf8uMyaCcRtPi8+FpQXU+L/yJMdOdbIaBp qzrS69ttNogkQH0lNzVntse8iEodPqBpzKAuv9gX96ge4Nt6Wwrhch58UzhAPQ8zRcAz OB8GM/bHBh72XBgVfqJ/IgXIP7B8sObax7YJNoJpNXXXyLwaJoW7GkLB/01/IXyQ4gj4 avBt8xL0yTR/L5KRo2/5ZyjwrWHnJ8a0tByfquCINMVsomgDOL8Mob9dd5CHLU6AuFhO F6eVz5leFa/xPVo4HJsn3Mov5W2WD5szhCLzmhcVccYYS8ihkt7KXcVs0M9eOlpS/hma EG/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YI5KfBzd3OdUm+b1DMWSEkbLOPh643xrmh9RIlv68rI=; b=gSzlapIOU07pEDuRu8HqgX2CJKLt829v0FyHjtIimJOg8pGAXJiM29W/i6ZQJKADmL t3kBnCXeWmZQ45ll5u+SRXnYiac6QMGtvwtbR2ZProjyIn7eLyUew2314HAwA2q8MTn3 F0f5yJG/SXf3e4TJDqeLLe/iubeTjofTNxu06s+O3dUzUX9rpT4gI2osPv4um9mZFeuX d8yeWqdssQmQ5mX+0Z2Srr/+hz/AOEUFc1I798NAQFeGtGs1pScP7oQi9dsDP6evdNHg 0x4w77xdxLBZfonlIGRU79rslwDzFvvAM/7E8Nq/kqkmGfofEVj2biixsKBRsTjUumVs kFBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDcB7tRDRTI5PttNZsrDz7syC9zPLlRyh3YBsjvHsY8YP0n5rF/ gEKjBqj6q0W/zBGz8die3CLsJw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+koQLrSvWis7bCz4wcLpFFol3W61x4D1L0pN0VQJAVZSCv+3OFOIabSY9mpmjfGMpXAooeSQ==
X-Received: by 10.167.129.202 with SMTP id c10mr21638712pfn.245.1524524730392; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([118.149.104.73]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a15sm21953509pfn.31.2018.04.23.16.05.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Brian Carpenter <becarpenter46@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20180419174627.2krzjbxgx25s5wxz@mx4.yitter.info> <20180423162016.elmju5r6qcb6xcbt@anvilwalrusden.com> <49c1c20d-000c-9664-d998-cace737704d8@gmail.com> <20180423220651.t5f6emixyoo3sp6c@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4dc465e8-d855-75ad-8dd1-919029f65f9f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:05:29 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180423220651.t5f6emixyoo3sp6c@mx4.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AnA3mjvMJDiERiZmGm6FnrLgoF8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:05:33 -0000

Andrew,
On 24/04/2018 10:06, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:59:28AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> 1. "Payment is due at registration."
>>
>> I can understand that in general, but there are cases where
>> somebody wants to register without being quite sure whether they
>> will attend remotely or in person. So since registration for
>> remote participation presumably remains free, there needs to be
>> a clear option for upgrading from remote to on-site registration,
>> which would then require payment as part of the upgrade.
> 
> I don't think I understand what you're saying.  If remote
> participation remains free (there is no current plan about rules for
> remote participation), then if someone decides later in the planning
> cycle to go to the meeting, they pay the meeting fee on that date.
> Are you suggesting that someone who registered early for remote
> participation and later decides to go to the venue should qualify for
> the rate applicable at the time they registered for remote
> participation? 

I think you're over-interpreting what I intended to say, probably because
I said it badly. All I mean is: please be sure that the policy as finally
published, and the registration page, make it clear that someone who registers
for remote participation will have to pay whatever rate applies if and
when they later upgrade to on-site. I think that needs to be said explicitly
to avoid any possible confusion.
 
>> 2. "Early Bird 700 7 weeks before"
>>
>> Given lead times many people experience for travel approvals,
>> 7 weeks *really* seems like a lot, however normal it may be for
>> other events. In fact, for travel planning the current IETF
>> policy is very user-friendly. Could we compromise at 4 weeks?
> 
> I don't see how.  "Early" ought to mean, well, "early".  7 weeks is
> early.  4 weeks is not; that's standard, and should pay the standard
> fee.  We are warning people about this plan well in advance, so people
> who need to get travel approval to get the early bird rate for IETF
> 103 may start their approvals process now (or, in a couple weeks, if
> they really want to wait until the final details are worked out).  But
> I don't see how it is even remotely possible to describe "4 weeks in
> advance of something" as "early".

Well, I'm suggesting that we should be nicer to people than some other
events. We're on a 4 month cycle, so direct comparison with (say) an
annual conference isn't fair. People can't necessarily make plans
2 meetings ahead. Also, when dealing with corporate travel approval
processes, and with corporate travel agents, the fewer constraints you
have, the better.

Regards
    Brian