Hi Adrian,
At 02:20 AM 11-06-2020, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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.
I would like to thank Google and Futurewei for
generosity in helping to remove barriers to participation.
I read the announcement which was sent on 28 May
once again. The scheme is not a waiver scheme;
it is similar to a bursary scheme where the
allocation is based on a random selection
mechanism. That is incongruent with the purpose;
i.e. the development and publication of Internet
standards, specifications and related documents
on a charitable, non-profit basis.
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?
There is a fee for everyone to attend
The attendance fees for up to 100 people will be kindly met by sponsors
There is no scope for waiving the attendance fees
There is no scope for seeking additional sponsors
Many thanks for continuing to work through these
details against a tight timeline.
Did you receive answers to the above questions?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
