On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/16/2013 6:10 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >> Since the topic keeps getting raised... I think that charging remote >> participants any fee is a really terrible idea. One of the really >> great things about the IETF is its open and free (as in beer) >> participation policy. The real work is supposed to be done on >> mailing lists, and there's no charge or restriction on who can send >> emails. That policy is actually quite rare for standards bodies, and >> makes our output better not worse. > > The IETF has never been free. Actually, it's quite expensive. > > We've maintained the myth that it's free because we've had long-term funding support from the outside, originally dubbed "daddy pays". First it was ARPA, then CNRI and now ISOC (and wealthy corporations). I didn't say it didn't cost someone money to run it - I said it's free to participate, and I like that policy and think we're better for it. *Of course* someone has to pay something, and we could have a long debate about a better funding model for the IETF in general. But that's not a problem I'm trying to fix. Some people on the list have expressed a desire to have better remote participation. I don't know if that's necessary or not, but I suggested a possible solution for that (i.e., audio input). The solution will cost some money. Not a lot, hopefully, but more than currently being spent. The people who run the meetings will have to tell us how much more, per meeting. Assuming it costs more than some trivial amount, we have to figure out a source of revenue for that. We don't have to re-do the whole IETF funding model - just figure out where to get the money for this new thing. So if that costs real money, I propose that instead of charging remote participants the cost, we charge f2f participants by burying it in the reg-fee, but discounting the reg-fee for those who can't expense the reg-fee. That sounds whacky, I know. It sounds radical too. It's not a new idea though, and some other places do the same but using different words (like "Corporate Attendee" vs. "Individual Attendee", but those don't make sense here). The good thing is it's something we can test and measure, without impacting attendee rates. We can't measure how impactful a fee to remote participants is - the number who join rises and falls due to various reasons; and even if they don't join due to the fee we won't know it - they won't say so, and won't join remotely, and we won't know it. Thus it's self-limiting and self-fulfilling. We can't measure how impactful a mandatory increase across-the-board for f2f meeting reg-fee is either - the number of f2f attendees rises/falls based on too many factors, and again it's self-limiting and self-fulfilling. With a selectable registration form check-box, and no laying of guilt or stigma on those who do/don't choose 'Self-Paying Rate' vs. 'Full Rate' and no external indicator of it, we can figure out if we get more money and how much, without directly impacting our f2f attendance rate. We can even do it *before* we go and pay for anything. We could, for example, have the check-box for the Vancouver IETF meeting form, with textual explanation of why to check it. We could do the same for remote participants too, just to see how much we'd get that way instead. > As remote participation tools get better, it is likely that we will have more remote attendees and fewer face-to-face ones. This likely means significant reduction in attendee fees but also could challenge sponsor fees, since the marketing benefit of sponsorship for the f2f will likely go down. I have a hard time believing that. If anyone thinks they get as much out of remote participation as they do with f2f, then I think they're crazy... but you're right they shouldn't come. If it turns out a lot of people stop coming, then maybe we really don't need f2f meetings or as many of them. Or maybe it means we need to make cost the highest priority factor in meeting locations, instead of one among many must-have requirements. Or maybe it means we need to restructure how we spend and get funding. Regardless, the goal of the IETF isn't to have f2f meetings - it's a means to an end, not an end in itself. I think it's super-valuable, for both physical attendees and the output the IETF produces; and I think it's worth having it 3 times year. I *want* people to go physically. But if it's not valuable to many people, don't have them; or not as frequently. -hadriel