Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com> Sat, 13 November 2010 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ole@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29773A6B73 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:20:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id veOXqWUMe76k for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5ED3A680E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALto3UyrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACiUnGjWII+DQGYYYMLgj8EhFqBKoQISw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,190,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="619067294"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2010 00:20:30 +0000
Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAD0KU9w009546; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:20:30 GMT
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:19:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <201011122308.oACN89K1013100@sj-core-1.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011121616000.12606@pita.cisco.com>
References: <1106719229.799545.1289526328086.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011112007060.12026@pita.cisco.com> <201011122308.oACN89K1013100@sj-core-1.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:20:12 -0000

Oops, sorry you did ask more than one question. This one:

"What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict 
mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? 
You sort of indicate that it was "the local host" and the (paraphrasing here)
"cultural artifact".  But then go on to "its no big thing"

Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) 
companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - 
especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more 
than a day or a meeting.  As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on 
this."

Answer (my own opinion): We may not have a policy that states you 
cannot pass around a badge to a number of people, but I think it 
violates the spirit of "no free lunch" particularly now that the 
meeting fees are a significant source of income to balanace the 
meeting expenses. Ditto (obviously) for day passes. Buying one and 
sending 5 people clearly defeats the purpose.

(I think the registration page says that you can send a substitute, 
but that's a different matter).

Ole



Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj