Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 83C103A0E5D; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LBwlbrFvaT2i; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430A33A0E58; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jggXy-000ENe-Bn; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 23:28:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 23:27:55 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
Message-ID: <13132F76BDCFD66232A31E10@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <14C653DA-F025-4B91-90FD-AFA14B77D07F@ietf.org>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <3B19A920-9D33-4E3D-8B8B-8134A5E55316@gmail.com> <86D7C39D-9778-4408-B7CA-CB74E9572B1B@ietf.org> <CABmDk8k4+nf9CyMRVNQkY03T8w4=e-woY4Vxau2tLtz=g72tFw@mail.gmail.com> <14C653DA-F025-4B91-90FD-AFA14B77D07F@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HdgFKUkACbsSB6US50T7gBv1Zp8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:28:06 -0000


--On Thursday, June 4, 2020 09:19 +1200 Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
wrote:
 
>> On 4/06/2020, at 7:37 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> A simple answer to the t-shirt issue is that t-shirts will be
>> only be available if you register by a certain date (FCFS) -
>> that's the best forcing function with this group AFAICT since
>> the cookie count isn't impacted.   
>> 
>> Otherwise, I don't see the point in deadlines either.  I
>> would think you could get an estimate based on the number
>> that participated remotely for IETF-108, maybe adding 10%.
>> Or using the average number of in person attendees + remote
>> attendees.  I really doubt that having the virtual meeting
>> would dramatically increase the number of participants and I
>> would hope the logistics aren't that sensitive to
>> fluctuations in number of participants.  And, having the late
>> fee could very well backfire and you'll have a lot more one
>> day folks once people see the agenda and realize they missed
>> the early bird (or even standard) registration dates,
>> especially for those of us that are self funded.  

Jay,

As I continue to defer sending my very long note (and take
things out of it as others ask similar questions), I like Mary's
idea about making the t-shirts or equivalent available only to
those who register by a certain date.  Maybe printing up some
extras, charging extra for them, and making that second-wave
collection FCFS.

There is another aspect of the charging plan that I'm a little
concerned about and it is connected to Mary's comment about
latecomers opting for day passes.  Before the recent
disruptions, one of the features of coming in remotely has been
that someone could opt to just watch and listen in real time
(i.e., not wait for the YouTube recordings to show up), giving
the option of remaining anonymous, etc.  I don't have any data
on how often we managed to turn them into active participants
but I know there have been people who were encouraged to use
that option to understand better how the IETF worked or what a
particular WG was doing.     The other was the participant,
option which, in recent years, required registering, virtually
signing blue sheet approximations, etc. 

And someone who was watching but decided they were interested
enough to want to contribute during that meeting could simply
log out, register (at no cost) and come back in.  I, at least,
mentioned that "if you are uncomfortable identifying yourself,
watch and then register if you feel like you want to speak up"
option to several people in recent years.

So...

(1) With the new fee structure, will the watch/observe option --
without any fee or need to identify oneself -- still exist?

(2) If we have someone who signs up to observe, is remote
partially to minimize costs, and who then decides to start
participating and contributing, is a super-premium
during-meeting registration fee the message we want to send?
Did you and the LLC, ideally in consultation with the IESG,
think about waiving late fees (or creating a cheap more-than-one
day pass) for first-timers?  I'd be astonished if that had a
major budgetary impact, but it would help send a message about
our being welcoming and would  be independent of the actual
waiver program.

thanks,
   john