Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 6/11/20 4:39 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 12/06/2020 00:02, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I get the impression that this is more about is your $CORP sending
>> you, or are you paying for it on your own dime.
> Not sure that's quite right tbh. Doesn't cover people from
> situations where they're very unlikely to ever be able to
> afford the travel. But it's not only about that - if we end
> up charging for the wrong things in the wrong way, then I'd
> bet that'd damage the entire concept of IETF-meetings and
> cross-area review (or whichever aspect of that kind of
> serendipity you like most) and we'd end up more like a set
> of unrelated industry-projects than not. That's a bit
> negative and very speculative, as such things must be, but
> I don't think it's that wild to see some of the possible
> outcomes here doing damage to the idea of there even being
> an IETF community accessible to anyone with technical clue
> who wants to elbow their way in. (Ditto for scenarios that
> don't require elbows, which are of course nicer:-)

G*wd help us if this turns into a freemium kind of model where certain 
virtual meeting features are unlocked. I totally get TANSTAFAAL, and 
IETF needs to be funded. It's just that it ain't going be done by 
cheapskates like me who aren't going to globe trot either. Of course the 
vast number of meeting goers probably get that too, but i do worry that 
bean counters' bots will sound the alarm if atoms are not involved 
somehow. Maybe you can ship out cookies to each paid attendee as proof 
that atoms were involved? :)

Mike