Re: Remote participation fees

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 D553E1A0369 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 RkZCPOHAk3fC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFED61A0364 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 8A47BC94BE; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:06:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:06:10 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
Message-ID: <20150214230610.GT14296@verdi>
References: <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> <151A56B136596974BA8A9217@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <151A56B136596974BA8A9217@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Sm-00r7yKO0YQgwY65Tn_hCFMUk>
Cc: 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 23:06:27 -0000

   Mostly, this is just "+1" -- but I'll expand on a few things...

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> As a periodic remote participant, some observations:
> 
> First, the big costs to me of a f2f meetin are associated with
> being away from home, getting on airplanes (for some medical
> reasons, especially bad news when the meeting is outside North
> America) and staying in a hotel.  The registration fees have
> crept up well beyond the historical nuisance and cookie charge,
> but are still close to the noise of overall expenses.

   +1

   Note also that visa problems are real! Even those able to clear
the time and cover the expense may find themselves prohibited from
attending in person.

> Second, I would actually prefer to be formally registered and
> paying some reasonable remote participate registration fee.  I'm
> prefer to be recorded as attending sessions I attend and
> participate in, whether by my name going on the blue sheet with
> an asterisk or by some other mechanism.  I don't like the idea
> of others (or even their companies) subsidizing me and would
> prefer to be in a situation in which there were established
> conventions about what, as a remote participant, I have the
> right to expect.i

   +1

> In general, people have been _very_ good about it, but, when the
> audio isn't working for the first session on Monday morning
> (from my observations, a common problem) I believe that I,
> and remote participants who are more shy about complaining than
> I am, should feel that we are entitled to have that situation
> treated as a major, probably session-stopping, problem, on a par
> with the in-room lights or projector not working or no one in
> the room being able to hear a speaker.

   +1

   This problem is endemic with the first Monday sessions, and
would be _so_ easy to fix!

> Similar comments apply to not being able to make a comment or
> ask a question during a meeting because of the way the
> microphone lines are being managed.

   +1

   Being prevented from asking timely questions _is_ the difference
between attendance and participation.

> Now I do think that having some fee waiver systems for hardships
> is important, but actually no more important than having similar
> arrangements for hardship waivers for in-person attendees.

   +1

> And I don't think people who just want to listen (or watch)
> remotely should be charged or asked to identify themselves as
> the price for doing so.

   +1

>...
> But, if nothing else, in the interest of openness and fairness,
> those who are _participating_ remotely ought to be registered
> (like everyone else), identified as participating in specific
> WG sessions when they do so (like everyone else), and that it
> is entirely reasonable that there be a corresponding registration
> fee (as for everyone else).
   +1

   (but that fee need not cover the cookies... ;^)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>