Re: Thinking laterally

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 27 February 2015 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D26F1ACD3E for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:32:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hOu3ZJqEifoz for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE8F1A00FB for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4399DA0209 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:32:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9DB53E078; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ( by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:32:55 -0800
Received: from [] ( by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:32:55 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Thinking laterally
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:32:51 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:32:57 -0000

On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <> wrote:
> * I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker
> * Paying a fee is better for my CFO
> * Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it

I think if you tell your CFO "As a paid attendee, I am obligated to pay full boat, so here's the receipt," your CFO will pay without complaining.   I am sure there are marginal cases where the CFO will not pay, but I would expect cases where the CFO _could_ pay but won't to be fairly uncommon.

> One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.

What I would like to see here is a camera on every microphone, on the presenter, on the chairs, and maybe one pointing back at the room, and someone or something picking which camera to send to the feed at any given time, plus a separate slide feed.   The feed in each meeting room should be the slides plus whatever the current video feed is.   Registered attendees, regardless of what they paid, would be able to ask questions in the mic line with video (optional) and audio, or else by typing text that would appear on the screen when their turn came.

This is eminently doable in principle, but I suspect not sufficiently automatic at present for us to actually make it work.   I suspect the meetecho people _could_ do this, but not at a cost that would make sense for an IETF meeting (yet).

> So kicking in $100 a session for video is a no-brainer. Can make this an advance payment thing. The video is only guaranteed if at least one person drops the $100 though and the list of 'sponsors' of the video is only published after the ability to sign up closes.
> If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference fee per session.

If the video has been captured, I think it's going to be hard sell to put it behind a paywall, since it's part of the proceedings and hence part of the consensus process.   We don't paywall the audio; I think the principle is similar.

So I think that your idea of voting with your wallet probably isn't the right approach--it's not wrong, but I think you are setting your sights too low.