Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

There is a key difference between a f2f meeting and a remote meeting that
impacts this perspective.  And, that is the networking and opportunity for
hallway discussions on technical topics that can help you do a better job
for whomever might be paying you to do work, even if they're not sponsoring
your participation at the meeting.    Indeed, for some of us that self
sponsor, we get far more value out of that activity than we do the sessions
themselves.

I had mentioned in a previous email the notion that rather than a fixed fee
that one could register and make a donation in lieu of a fee.   Following
along this proposed model maybe the registration is setup such that there
is a recommended donation to participate in the meeting, that gives folks
flexibility.  I know other non-profits that run their conferences that way.

Mary.



On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:59 PM Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Barbara,
>
> I was going to suggest something very similar, recognizing that we have
> more or
> less 2 classes of attendees; those who “always” attend in person and those
> who
> never do so for whatever reasons. Since it is reasonable to assume that
> the “always”
> crowd already had Madrid in their budget (private or corporate), it would
> seem
> to follow that Virtual Madrid is indeed going to represent significant
> savings over
> a normal meeting.
>
> If we were to add a box with something like:
>
> [x] I’d like to contribute an additional amount to support remote
> participants (etc)
>
> … which lets you add an to the “shopping cart” during registration.
>
> This would indeed be a very nice experiment!
>
> Ole
>
>
> > On 11 Jun 2020, at 11:42, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> If the fee waiver programme were uncapped then would you still regard
> that as a bandaid?
> >> Jay
> >
> > I'm going to reply at this point in the thread with some thoughts I
> haven't seen expressed yet.
> > Much of the commentary against registration fees has come from or on
> behalf of people who struggle to pay the fees.
> > Much of the commentary for registration fees has come from people who do
> not struggle to pay the fees.
> >
> > As someone who doesn't struggle to pay the fee (because my employer
> finds it a significant savings over what would have been paid), but who
> recognizes that others do struggle, what I would have preferred would be:
> >
> > Put a statement on the registration page:
> >
> > IETF needs to raise $515,145 to pay for costs that would normally have
> been covered by in-person registration fees. See
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-registration-fees/ for more details. We
> request that those who are able to pay the fees do so. Any who are not
> able, please simply check the "waiver request" box. You will then be able
> to register for free. If your company would like to help sponsor our
> experiment with unlimited waivers (to enable IETF to continue allowing all
> to contribute, regardless of situation) , please contact us at <email>.
> >
> > And then have unlimited and automatic waiver.
> >
> > IETF likes to experiment. So we should experiment with a trust model.
> Trust that only those who need the waiver will request it, and see what
> happens.
> > Barbara
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office: [phone]
> Cell:   [phone]
> Web: protocoljournal.org
> E-mail: [e-mail]
> E-mail: [e-mail]
> Skype: organdemo
>
>