Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 15:45 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 E23391ACD61; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:26 -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 frrL7yb3TCja; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (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 E13841ACC81; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lbiw7 with SMTP id w7so18082711lbi.10; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:19 -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=o6q6Jdz9Qgn14Q3/KuJB/L+RUmzuou6mTC+I65LY/Xk=; b=obPmLOB63IVQ1dUo1THTC5koXQKQjrR6YNtmVFlR7SC11F3F/OaAYOVNTaB0aWU/e4 ASyThBQfKb3MahEcQNsq84Drt1/H5nL3j72VDS6cHnl1v0qOQBKavs8/sVhUrF13KQNU nCo4pvryI6hC8U/wh+Y4OoDWSpr/hjQneH48IXOrkmU3FfGyNhKlLpnwS8/qt1YRhU4l ecIiCZANZ/iXt0c818FMtXgiI6uOH/9e2K2gYY+oJxxpoAGA7Ss+c5Ly2KcKIrVML7Yd pFmxGygyHPLp834BAHiIYHXZDOKcVruwBh0g+Oerrb7uIotybAbSvVuT3o5dn/aE1apf I2uw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.42.66 with SMTP id m2mr3211372lbl.110.1425051919413; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.40.204 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:45:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rc7QHbSFxoksseyPBOMBucYRYHZGiWH_RJUU8=Def_PkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <m2h9uokmij.wl%randy@psg.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <CAKHUCzxrLKNSTMYyt1BGO22MbsKtU2NfDvyLEpTZDnudaqgP=w@mail.gmail.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <CADnDZ8-s6anrJhvg1RSf1FFqcfHY9SEOT-xgHCSyh48Rct9aVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D71BDB2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rc7QHbSFxoksseyPBOMBucYRYHZGiWH_RJUU8=Def_PkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:45:19 -0600
Message-ID: <CABmDk8nqzam4GTHwiwSa=HK1tZ1w50DTua+Qh7JbcQ7Az3cQ=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113372fa717616051013c11b
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XyV4r9HW2hTANT2bUwaJw81EB68>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:45:27 -0000

Personally, I think those of us that can't eat the cookies should be in a
priority queue for the ice cream.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christer,
>
> I think we should start with an experiment where it clearly counts -
> getting rid of ice cream neutrality.
> That's something where speed really matters ;-)
>
> Alia
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>>   I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the
>> faster access you have to the cookies...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>  ------------------------------
>> From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
>> Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
>> To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>rg>; diversity@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation
>> (was Re: Remote participation fees)
>>
>>   On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> > Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individuals
>> and
>> > companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in
>>
>> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.
>>
>> Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in
>> the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.  But the
>> participants are individual persons.
>>
>> > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees
>> > because IETF needs more diversity.
>>
>> I doubt it, though I don't know.  Remote *meeting* participation tools
>> have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
>> participation.  But we'd pay if the tools were good enough and the IETF
>> charged for it, or even just if the IETF chaged for it.
>>
>> Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
>> all.  No one is proposing otherwise.
>>
>> > However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or
>> ability to
>> > pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cost
>> and
>> > payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend
>> but
>> > the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what
>> matters
>> > is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet
>> for
>> > many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending
>> meeting
>> > physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think that
>> > makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pay
>> > for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?
>>
>> Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and
>> hotels are the large majority of the cost (ignoring cost of opportunity,
>> which may or may not be positive, though I'd assume it's negative in
>> general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).
>>
>> > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from
>> the
>> > [...]
>>
>> We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
>> don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
>> if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
>> negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
>> or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
>> anyone.)
>>
>> Nico
>> --
>>
>>
>