Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

John

> On 4/06/2020, at 3:27 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, June 4, 2020 09:19 +1200 Jay Daley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
>>> On 4/06/2020, at 7:37 AM, Mary B <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> A simple answer to the t-shirt issue is that t-shirts will be
>>> only be available if you register by a certain date (FCFS) -
>>> that's the best forcing function with this group AFAICT since
>>> the cookie count isn't impacted.   
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, I don't see the point in deadlines either.  I
>>> would think you could get an estimate based on the number
>>> that participated remotely for IETF-108, maybe adding 10%.
>>> Or using the average number of in person attendees + remote
>>> attendees.  I really doubt that having the virtual meeting
>>> would dramatically increase the number of participants and I
>>> would hope the logistics aren't that sensitive to
>>> fluctuations in number of participants.  And, having the late
>>> fee could very well backfire and you'll have a lot more one
>>> day folks once people see the agenda and realize they missed
>>> the early bird (or even standard) registration dates,
>>> especially for those of us that are self funded.  
> 
> Jay,
> 
> As I continue to defer sending my very long note (and take
> things out of it as others ask similar questions), I like Mary's
> idea about making the t-shirts or equivalent available only to
> those who register by a certain date.  Maybe printing up some
> extras, charging extra for them, and making that second-wave
> collection FCFS.

The intention is that they are time limited as they only apply to early bird registrations, but the text may not have been clear on that.  

> 
> There is another aspect of the charging plan that I'm a little
> concerned about and it is connected to Mary's comment about
> latecomers opting for day passes.  Before the recent
> disruptions, one of the features of coming in remotely has been
> that someone could opt to just watch and listen in real time
> (i.e., not wait for the YouTube recordings to show up), giving
> the option of remaining anonymous, etc.  I don't have any data
> on how often we managed to turn them into active participants
> but I know there have been people who were encouraged to use
> that option to understand better how the IETF worked or what a
> particular WG was doing.     The other was the participant,
> option which, in recent years, required registering, virtually
> signing blue sheet approximations, etc. 
> 
> And someone who was watching but decided they were interested
> enough to want to contribute during that meeting could simply
> log out, register (at no cost) and come back in.  I, at least,
> mentioned that "if you are uncomfortable identifying yourself,
> watch and then register if you feel like you want to speak up"
> option to several people in recent years.
> 
> So...
> 
> (1) With the new fee structure, will the watch/observe option --
> without any fee or need to identify oneself -- still exist?

Not contemporaneously.  Recordings will be posted to YouTube after each session (timing to be operationally determined).

> 
> (2) If we have someone who signs up to observe, is remote
> partially to minimize costs, and who then decides to start
> participating and contributing, is a super-premium
> during-meeting registration fee the message we want to send?
> Did you and the LLC, ideally in consultation with the IESG,
> think about waiving late fees (or creating a cheap more-than-one
> day pass) for first-timers?  I'd be astonished if that had a
> major budgetary impact, but it would help send a message about
> our being welcoming and would  be independent of the actual
> waiver program.

That edge case was not considered.  

Jay

> 
> thanks,
>   john

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]