Re: [123attendees] Re: [122attendees] Toward Inclusive Participation– Community Dialogue on Venue Selection (draft-attoumani-ietf-inclusion)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

If you attended remotely, there are unlimited fee waivers for remote
attendance.  As Kyle says, the video teleconferencing situation is pretty
spectacular.
For in person attendance, there are a small number of fee waivers, but they
are much harder to get.

In both cases, a fee waiver has to be applied for.

So if you did the hackathon in Madrid and/or splurged for the workshop in
Madrid (or received one of the small number of fee waivers), you could
attend Montreal remotely on a fee waiver.

In all of those cases, you need to figure out which working groups interest
you, read the mail list, review the drafts, etc.

Deb Cooley


On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM Michael De Roover <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Monday, June 9, 2025 7:09:34 PM CEST Kyle Rose wrote:
> > I do think the IETF's problem with inclusivity is made worse by the
> > expensive meetings necessary for access to the hallway track, but that is
> > merely one problem among many. It seems obvious to me that there will
> never
> > be a perfectly level playing field (and we should be careful to heed the
> > lessons of Harrison Bergeron in our attempts to level it) but lots could
> be
> > done to make it easier for new folks with new ideas to contribute. But at
> > the same time let's not fool ourselves into thinking the barriers are all
> > within the control of the IETF or existing participants to solve. Getting
> > involved in standards development to the point where one can make an
> actual
> > contribution is *hard* and requires application of time and real effort,
> > whether you are on a company expense account or not.
> >
> > One bright spot is that remote participation has improved the experience
> > for both remote and in-person attendees by at the very least making it
> > clear who is speaking at the mic. The remote experience is frankly about
> as
> > good as I could imagine short of actual telepresence and holo-Dukes
> walking
> > the hallways. But with the excellence of Meetecho in 2025, we may have
> hit
> > the point of diminishing returns on remote participation: other aspects
> of
> > the participant experience likely have lower-hanging fruit.
> >
> > Kyle
>
> I've been wanting to go to one of these IETF conferences, but I have to
> admit,
> the 1000 bucks price point is quite a bitter pill to swallow when doing it
> out
> of pocket. Generally when I go to FOSDEM (which I have been attending
> since
> 2016), I basically just buy that year's shirt and a couple of beers,
> alongside
> the train tickets to get there. All things considered, probably something
> like
> 50 euro? Well, that and maybe a hotel, but all of Brussels is consistently
> over capacity for those weekends. Easier to just take a train back home
> for
> the night.
>
> For the IETF conferences meanwhile, I'll have to go by plane (which is
> fine),
> and probably stick to Madrid or maybe Dublin. But Dublin would apparently
> have
> a visa requirement that I'm not really familiar with. So far I only fly
> regularly within the EU.
>
> I do like that the hackathons are free (if memory serves), it really adds
> to
> that crowd-sourced spirit that I've gotten accustomed to from FOSDEM. For
> the
> first time going to an IETF conference, I think I'll start with just that
> to
> test the waters. After that though, doing a one-time splurge.. why not.
> But
> even if I do manage to start a business by that time, it would just be a
> business expense in accounting at best. Much easier when it's a big
> corporate
> employer footing the bill, that much is for sure... I remember even for
> the
> LPI exams I took at FOSDEM (where they are 50% off), most of my peers were
> paying for it through their employers as well.
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Michael De Roover
>
> Mail: [e-mail]
> Web: michael.de.roover.eu.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 123attendees mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>