Re: Planned changes to registration payments & deadlines

[Matthew Pounsett <[e-mail]>]

On 23 April 2018 at 18:06, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I can understand that in general, but there are cases where
> > somebody wants to register without being quite sure whether they
> > will attend remotely or in person. So since registration for
> > remote participation presumably remains free, there needs to be
> > a clear option for upgrading from remote to on-site registration,
> > which would then require payment as part of the upgrade.
>
> I don't think I understand what you're saying.  If remote
> participation remains free (there is no current plan about rules for
> remote participation), then if someone decides later in the planning
> cycle to go to the meeting, they pay the meeting fee on that date.
> Are you suggesting that someone who registered early for remote
> participation and later decides to go to the venue should qualify for
> the rate applicable at the time they registered for remote
> participation?
>

I think the suggestion was more about process than payment.  In the past,
it hasn't been clear how to go about changing attendance types, or even if
it was possible.  I had to switch from in-person to remote for a recent
meeting and ended up emailing the secretariat to get someone to do it
manually.  That worked because payment and registration were separate.

I'd like to echo a related idea from the thread:  perhaps we could maintain
the current separate registration and payment processes, but impose the
deadlines on payment?  In other words, it doesn't matter when I register...
whether I'm early-bird or not depends on when I pay.  I think that would
satisfy your requirements as well as keep the status quo process-wise for
anyone who has someone else (an employer, assistant, or whoever) paying on
their behalf.


>  But I don't see how it is even remotely possible to describe "4 weeks in
> advance of something" as "early".
>
> I agree.  I think the proposed schedule is quite reasonable.