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
