Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 14/02/15 18:21, Mary Barnes wrote:
> > And, actually this is already happening with Meetecho.
>
> I think we ought forget about charging for remote attendance until
> remote attendance is much better. Remotely attending IETF-91 via
> meetecho was a good bit better than I expected but is nowhere near
> the point where we could charge. Let's make it work first, and then
> see how that affects attendance and then figure out charging models
> and not try do that backwards by starting to discuss charging models
> for something that doesn't yet exist.
>
> S.
>
[MB] As I said in an earlier thread, I'm personally very conflicted as to
whether this should be
considered at all.   I'm not at all suggesting that we do this now - I'm
just suggesting that improving
the experience and changing how we work a tad might be possible - that's
all.  Others seem to think that
we would negatively impact, the IETF culture, which is primarily what I
disagree with. .  I do recognize that
quality isn't quite there yet, but it's pretty darn good and maybe good
enough.  The bigger issue might well end
up being whether remote participants have a high enough quality Internet
connection for this to work
well for enough people.  I certainly do and most folks in large
metropolitan areas do.  The good news
is that ISOC has an initiative to try to improve the situation:
http://www.internetsociety.org/access
[/MB]