Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk> Mon, 15 November 2010 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FC83A6A01 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:21:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e7oA2Wujrp4t for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from insensate.co.uk (ghost.insensate.co.uk [213.152.49.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FE03A69C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8189D8FD53F; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:05:09 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011121616000.12606@pita.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:05:09 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FB3C8C9D-540C-4043-9257-21359BFBD8F6@insensate.co.uk>
References: <1106719229.799545.1289526328086.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011112007060.12026@pita.cisco.com> <201011122308.oACN89K1013100@sj-core-1.cisco.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011121616000.12606@pita.cisco.com>
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 01:21:52 -0000

Hi Ole, folks,
 I missed it -- the IETF fee includes lunch now?
The IETF meetings have often had badge police on the food.
So .. were you referring to that, or anyone being allowed into the meetings?
[Requirement to fill in Blue sheets is an entirely different topic to barring entry]

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 13 Nov 2010, at 00:19, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Oops, sorry you did ask more than one question. This one:
> 
> "What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict 
> mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? 
> You sort of indicate that it was "the local host" and the (paraphrasing here)
> "cultural artifact".  But then go on to "its no big thing"
> 
> Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) 
> companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - 
> especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more 
> than a day or a meeting.  As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on 
> this."
> 
> Answer (my own opinion): We may not have a policy that states you 
> cannot pass around a badge to a number of people, but I think it 
> violates the spirit of "no free lunch" particularly now that the 
> meeting fees are a significant source of income to balanace the 
> meeting expenses. Ditto (obviously) for day passes. Buying one and 
> sending 5 people clearly defeats the purpose.
> 
> (I think the registration page says that you can send a substitute, 
> but that's a different matter).
> 
> Ole