Re: Remote participation fees

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Sat, 14 February 2015 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D2B1A036F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:51:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 IfPFMsgG6k4F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A161A0369 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 35175C94BD; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:51:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:51:28 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
Message-ID: <20150214225128.GS14296@verdi>
References: <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <71F05D3C-95F1-4424-B6AA-49EBCCB7065A@isoc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <71F05D3C-95F1-4424-B6AA-49EBCCB7065A@isoc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vAy5UmwEpAmXyBhAx6f_ho9gGjA>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:51:45 -0000

Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
>> On Feb 14, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> 
>> I think we ought forget about charging for remote attendance until
>> remote attendance is much better. Remotely attending IETF-91 via
>> meetecho was a good bit better than I expected but is nowhere near
>> the point where we could charge.

   I disagree.

   Meetecho _may_ be still at the point where folks would demand their
money back ;^) but the biggest problems were simply it being hard to tell
the difference between a microphone turned off and the sound not working.

   This could be fixed rather quickly, if we had anybody on site who
would communicate this difference.

   Obviously (and the Meetecho folks would be the first to agree) there
is room for improvement. But I didn't find Meetecho to be the source
of my frustrations.

   The big frustration is a five-minute lag between when I want to ask
a question and when I _might_ get that question repeated at the mike.
By then, the question may no longer be appropriate!

   Fixing this alone would be worth $50 a day to me. I don't think I'm
alone in this...

>> Let's make it work first, and then see how that affects attendance
>> and then figure out charging models

   Is there anybody besides the Meetecho folks whose task it is to
"make it work"? Is there anybody _including_ the Meetecho folks who
has the ability to arrange similar priority at the mike to that of
on-site participants?

   If not, we're simply not trying to make it work. :^(

>> and not try do that backwards by starting to discuss charging models
>> for something that doesn't yet exist.

   There are _many_ products that _won't_ be developed if the folks
who control the resources don't believe there _is_ a workable charging
model.

   :^( :^( :^(

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>