Yep. That's the same conclusion I just came to in my response to Jay.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 12:11 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So sign up for remote attendance, pay the fee (or get a waiver), and attend the WG sessions from the hotel hallway on a laptop. Since IETF picks functional full-service conference hotels this is very doable.
The hallway and coffee shop/bar/restaurant meetings are the most valuable thing that cannot be recreated with remote participation in any case, and there's no fee for those.
Thanks,
Chris.
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 5/13/22 11:15, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>
>> The fee waivers are currently for remote participation. If someone has no or
>> low income, it seems logical that they will be unable to afford airfare and
>> hotels, etc. In which case they are participating in a low cost remote manner
>> and can apply for a fee waiver.
>
> Those are really not valid assumptions. I've often found ways to save
> tremendously on airfare, lodging, or both. Sometimes I had a friend living
> nearby with whom I could stay. Sometimes the conference was within a
> reasonable driving distance. Sometimes I have had a sponsor who was willing to
> pay for airfare, or meeting fee, but not both. Sometimes with diligent
> shopping, I've found great deals on travel, even if it meant I had to drive a
> few hours each way to an airport with a low fare. Sometimes I've been able to
> use frequent flyer miles left over from years ago when I traveled frequently.
>
> And remote participation, while certainly better than nothing, is not usually an
> adequate substitute for being there.
>
> I also think it's really easy for people who are funded by their employers to
> assume that other participants "should" be like them - e.g someone who is
> qualified to participate in IETF will have a job that pays for their travel and
> meeting fees. But in talking to other attendees at several IETF conferences
> over the years, I've found that this simply isn't true. I've talked to many
> extremely qualified and valuable participants whose jobs really aren't about
> protocol design and whose employers don't really support their IETF work, or
> only support it partially. (Perhaps people don't always like to say so,
> though, out of concern of being seen as less legitimate by other "professionals"
> at IETF.)
>
> Keith
