> (Sorry, responding to myself.) The best, and perhaps only, way to get a sensible response. > The other thing I should have said is that we don’t have any good > guess on the size of the participant population that is price-sensitive > at the $230 reg fee level, since most in-person participants have to > pay 2x or 4x the registration fee to travel to a meeting, and remote > participation at in-person meetings is free. Therefore, aside from > the survey data, we don’t have a great way to estimate the demand > for fee waivers, and it may be the case that the pool of 100 will be > enough to meet the demand, in which case we won’t need any > selection process. So, I’m a little confused (not hard to achieve). If it turns out that 100 waivers are enough, then surely 300 would also be enough. But I am also confused as to why we call this “a waiver”. It looks, from the various statements, that the waiver scheme is sponsored by Google and Futurewei. I for one am very grateful to these companies for their generosity and support of making the IETF more accessible and open. However, what appears to be described is a bursary scheme not a waiver scheme. That is, all attendance still has a cost: the question is simply who is covering that cost. And maybe this is the point. If this was truly a waiver scheme then the cost of increasing the number of users of the scheme would be zero (additional people attending who would not otherwise attend does not cost AFAICS). It is only if the scheme is a bursary that it needs to be limited to the size of the bursary (presumably capped at $23k) and some way has to be found to choose between a greater number of applicants. Am I right?
Many thanks for continuing to work through these details against a tight timeline. Best, Adrian |
