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

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Sat, 14 February 2015 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C7B1A01D8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 k21Ro6U8bKvP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::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 B568D1A037C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w7so21350150lbi.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=C93alkQMP7JpsEirHhaIqptzemhGDuH/EWY0rVxg+/0=; b=gcc8w1laxZqmp91h3TT/CjuagN9ReVZLgWaca62nobxE1cQEInQ3gKJP7EfhOo8Lev Nx5oB14KU9SMkzb75I6xhwn8/nWunXlHyb9edDxpR+e8ed7mNcunPJXdl+fY3VuVJMjI omNqQuzDG8ptAdArm/1KP8K2fPwqsnq1zf9VReRPK02g5erVh0INHlnRFd6YtMGlxuO1 M0s8+SwovbroF9L9YES+WuzD1WC5t6fxXGMsSNNwMJtKGHBiO2c7KgCWKBdPmtTkkco3 fSnt5nAfdvpanIYRzlSGwYwBFtkVGnpaG5O49XkO5Be04f7si3EfWJn0lfHM6d+/Nzh+ i/Kw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.194 with SMTP id a2mr14754066lak.105.1423954024229; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.40.133 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:47:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <tsla90ikh85.fsf@mit.edu> <37661D4B-1842-4890-88FB-2A7B13CDC884@nominum.com> <CABmDk8m1KuSs8os9V7fcYOJC2O4yMb6dRFer+nEPBTTSHtey9Q@mail.gmail.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:47:04 -0600
Message-ID: <CABmDk8nKHZZ0HQqgTSB=qc9wEbUaSOSsdKYyNjRf2wGF-XsLvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
From: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1656ca706b050f14218b
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MxmPVQ08FsdsNpPyfGfoFP6Fwcc>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 14 Feb 2015 22:47:33 -0000

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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]