Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Thu, 04 June 2020 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445D93A0E72 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XQ8il0J0qSfR; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5060F3A0E70; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <4C83E1E6-7080-4FB2-AA78-AD7CE64F7417@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2364911B-72C8-4891-81C5-A5192B6084C4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:45:48 +1200
In-Reply-To: <13132F76BDCFD66232A31E10@PSB>
Cc: Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <3B19A920-9D33-4E3D-8B8B-8134A5E55316@gmail.com> <86D7C39D-9778-4408-B7CA-CB74E9572B1B@ietf.org> <CABmDk8k4+nf9CyMRVNQkY03T8w4=e-woY4Vxau2tLtz=g72tFw@mail.gmail.com> <14C653DA-F025-4B91-90FD-AFA14B77D07F@ietf.org> <13132F76BDCFD66232A31E10@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ktVz-JAHN5zTHLqhHHBTA5w8WGA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:45:54 -0000

John

> On 4/06/2020, at 3:27 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, June 4, 2020 09:19 +1200 Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org <mailto:jay@ietf.org>>
> wrote:
> 
>>> On 4/06/2020, at 7:37 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
>>> 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
jay@ietf.org