Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)

Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Sat, 14 May 2022 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@gmail.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 78AF2C14F688 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 May 2022 08:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CqD9hOoq53Cv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 May 2022 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F50C14F687 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2022 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id t5so13200240edw.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2022 08:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Mu1gWbRT5FlegJnX3LiymsAYWib/HIr1WV8D5Lp8izI=; b=KrsjNmMX26/D11kQwUeatmvu43vlAwKNo6iopBW1ItPuz1XBvV0dqqN0rjLEuulkNZ G5nCMk0XKiR1YPuruY9gSUyW7gXq6xOoMYK3Oj17LPcY0Ei/phZk7JelCYXWkliH1Ssa DZ98+aUWza2T+MTooVEm1Rw9JxFZWrsKNFPLZDRbyoUeRlvz+n3WOiLSgz6jiOucbptP /ZJHArMZH289fviG4CPj0iWLk4o+bvJM/HK+rYKdr90E+aob+EcFpYXxxWULCZfkI4yO RdO5CpqkPDlL0pWQmbMkgws6qPl9Tk9qnizjYfNYEyriUt0+CnBeJQGaFfq8ZHQ6tD3Z y+kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Mu1gWbRT5FlegJnX3LiymsAYWib/HIr1WV8D5Lp8izI=; b=IeewtsfUm9T+tZNWHGc8AKrpJ1dIkk6Q2YMy7OfahRERFRxHaw5xlpc9+kA7uPPl6e N1MvgvbEG3MYSYkgQcF2P1wyShmyoTQwxtuHBss4QKSBSba9lIZee2ezAExWZ804u30l zAwHKTxq4ygw7lCaZmwUDzBc6hogu1S5W8Dv12JPGD5SnKBh/qHyInln0zPS1yiqlvGn gPQ0BfWhSI3+yG1MQZXikDivychY9Yy2aJkcHmbY7GVz57KFT4dtkkPselG5QWidUnT3 Cb0rCuhbcbiWTNCY/kkrssccYK0wN2+HRMn1OgKyuFno5DegvOzYMv6TNg+XuiU+G4+d gMTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306ZSfAiLF7LVx65hCv51JbACETEsl5/gHRCA109ZVxBwMm2NmS 9NsyphL4/SDKYdj80YCYh9fT47PH71B8L+cEIvY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOtTcYmJbfK/+mMlC/ZFuM3Zkcn+JZB/3R36OZssJMDnWZGb5b083ZRNHlztGCu/0ZpvGZI8SSwCU5O4I5o6Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2753:b0:423:3895:7031 with SMTP id z19-20020a056402275300b0042338957031mr4248184edd.170.1652542256890; Sat, 14 May 2022 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220510030716.1A4EF3FB1AB6@ary.qy> <da09ca47-110f-269c-8140-ea7b6dfc120c@network-heretics.com> <CAKr6gn1D5WTzCdOktT1+=A+_S440TtrgFniqrLdfjiCZsBC9KA@mail.gmail.com> <2EB6CA87-A5AE-4C06-9891-7AA02E8627A9@gmail.com> <5A341380-5797-4D93-B4CF-D36A119E3F67@ietf.org> <c7ddcc5e-cf1b-3154-e316-6fedead8983a@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c7ddcc5e-cf1b-3154-e316-6fedead8983a@gmail.com>
From: Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:30:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CABmDk8nHGwxYtKu0-0-PnO96qSEiDkvt5TixKP3X8fHLS1kRpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)
To: Michael Douglass <mikeadouglass@gmail.com>
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000032c57f05defa7a38"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QKmggYd3XGQnjAl4ZoBXoAw9osM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Sat, 14 May 2022 15:31:03 -0000

This isn't an unreasonable assessment but I think it's somewhat misguided
in suggesting the challenge is only for women when people have young kids
(also some kids have male parents).  So, I would suggest that paragraph is
more accurately stated as:

 This can be a major challenge, particularly for *individuals* with young
children. For many younger workers, this period of life tends to fall
around the time many are *raising* children. This makes  getting away to
conferences challenging for *people* with young children said Faust, who
also has two young children.

I started traveling regularly when my youngest was 3.  The big challenge is
when you have an infant that's breastfeeding because it's not practical to
leave them for a full week.  But, women have managed that one by bringing
grandparents, nannies, etc.  And, IETF is now offering childcare which is
great.  My family often traveled to the same locations before or after IETF
and we had nice vacations in nice places. So, for me and my family, we had
great benefits from the travel.  And, personally, I got a week's vacation
from parenting.  It's the at home job that's harder. I was at a 10 day
conference/tradeshow one time and the guys at dinner were complaining
because they had called home and their wives were complaining because they
were gone so long.  The guys didn't appreciate my response that the job the
moms were doing at home was a lot harder than what we were doing on a daily
basis.  It was a long tough show - on the floor for 10-12 hours daily.
But, it was still easier than the work and demands at home.

So, please don't perpetuate this myth that the burden of raising children
is primarily a woman's issue and that our challenges in the workplace are
because of children.

Regards,
Mary.

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 8:56 PM Michael Douglass <mikeadouglass@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I suspect focusing on details such as attendance fees etc is missing the
> point.
>
> This article provides an interesting viewpoint and appears well researched.
>
>
> https://phys.org/news/2021-12-virtual-conferences-environment-inclusive.html
>
> For some - the cost of attendance (fees, lodging, travel, time away from
> family) is worth what they get out of it. For many any or all of those
> prevents attendance. It's not the attendance fees that are exclusionary -
> it's the whole deal.
>
> Even if the entire cost was covered there are still cases as mentioned in
> that paper:
>
> In addition to cost, in-person events also require tremendous investments
> in time. These events require travel, often last multiple days, and take up
> all of attendees' time while they are there.
>
>
> This can be a major challenge, particularly for women. For many younger
> workers, this period of life tends to fall around the time many are having
> children. This makes getting away to conferences challenging for women,
> said Faust, who also has two young children.
>
> So I think there's no doubt about the exclusionary nature of in-person
> meetings. The question is what if anything is to be done?
>
> I'm not trying to offer solutions here - nor even point any fingers. I
> suspect there's no one answer and there probably has to be compromise.
> On 5/13/22 07:41, Jay Daley wrote:
>
> [Switching to admin-discuss]
>
> Hi Anupam
>
> On 13 May 2022, at 04:25, Anupam Agrawal <anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> At one point in time, meeting fees possibly was the only way to cover the
> costs of IETF and USD 600 was justified.
>
>
> How far back are you referring to?  ISOC has been contributing financially
> every year to the IETF since 1995 [1] so the last year I am aware of this
> being possibly correct was 1994.
>
> Even more was  justified even though at the risk of being exclusionary.
> Survival is important than optics.
>
> But now, As on Dec-20, IETF LLC had 19M USD (19,301,645 $) in stock
> investments yielding 2M USD in Investment income. Any stock market invest
> has a risk attached to it. Interestingly, the auditor points out that IETF
> bank deposits of 477K USD is beyond the insurable limit and thus has a risk.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/2020_Audited_Financials.pdf
>
>
> I don’t understand what relevance our current investment risk profile has
> to this issue?
>
>
> Possibly an opportunity to correct the exclusionary trend.
>
>
> Do you have any data on this exclusionary trend?
>
> It’s not clear to me what possibility you see here, but I think you are
> suggesting a reduction in the meeting fee rather than say travel grants.
> When this has been discussed previously, multiple community members have
> noted that the fee is a relatively small part of the total cost of meeting
> participation in comparison to travel and accommodation.  It is therefore
> questionable as to what benefit would be achieved by always running our
> meetings at a loss if the effect on participation was marginal.
>
> [1]
> https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-of-the-internet/ietf-internet-society/
>
>
> --
> Anupam
>
> On 10-May-2022, at 9:10 AM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
>
> I used a US inflation calculator. in 2007 IETF registration cost $600.
> 2022 would be $830 if it simply kept pace with the CPI adjustment to
> the dollar.
>
> So the "$700 is reasonable" has a basis in 15 years practie. When did
> we become so exclusionary? at least 15 years ago.
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/JUByvYCkSb2WDSt9h4lDkaoe9gc/
>
> -G
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 1:17 PM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/9/22 23:07, John Levine wrote:
>
> Could you give us a specific dollar limit for a reasonable price?
>
> This is going to vary a lot from one person to another, but offhand I'd
> say that $1000/meeting for hotel and entry fee combined (not including
> travel) is a good goal for meetings in North America.
>
> The early bird fee is $700.  $300 for a week's hotel?
>
> Why is $700 reasonable either?   How have we let IETF become so
> exclusionary?   Is that really consistent with IETF's mission?
>
> Even if we tried to go the cheap route and find a college campus
> that would host us for free, when I look for places near our
> local campus they're a lot more than $75/night.
>
> I don't know where you're from.   But I know many places where decent,
> safe, clean rooms can be had for around $75/night.   Granted, they're less
> likely to be in large cities, but sometimes they're within reasonable
> commuting distance of city centers.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> exec-director@ietf.org
>
>