--On Wednesday, October 01, 2014 23:50 -0400 Avri Doria
<avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ouch!
>
> Doesn't this move the IETF a bit further along the scale of
> meetings that can only be afforded by corporates and rich
> people.
>
> At some point, the openness of a task force, or other
> organizational entity, depends on its cost.
>...
Avri,
As someone who pays his own participation costs _and_ who has no
consulting or equivalent work in which anyone thinks they are
covering my Internet participation, let me agree with others: a
$50 increase is down in the noise compared to total costs of
attending meetings. In a way, it is actually likely to be more
significant to a company that is sending a lot of participants:
multiply it by ten of 20 and it starts sounding like real money
although, I'd contend, still down in the noise.
If we are really interested in minimizing the cost of attendance
and participation to those who are inclined to attend as
individuals, we would be concentrating on meeting locations and
facilities. In particular, we'd put more priority on avoiding
tourist destinations and places to which airfares are typically
high. We would also take more note for the observation that, if
someone arrives Saturday (often necessary to minimize airfares)
and leaves Friday (requires being lucky about WG slots and
airline schedules) a $10/day difference in room or meal costs is
more significant than a $50 registration fee increase.
That doesn't mean it sends the right message because I suggest
that it does not.
Let me repeat, in this context, another observation/suggestion,
even if it is somewhat against my personal interest. At a rough
approximation, portions of the meeting fee cover:
-- Direct attendee costs, including any unsponsored
portion of receptions and cookies
-- Other meeting costs, such as meeting rooms and
non-donated Internet connections and support, that are
not bundled into the hotel deal
-- Costs of remote participation that would not be
incurred if we didn't try to support remote
participation.
-- A fraction of secretariat and other overhead costs
associated with operating the IETF, both during meetings
and separately.
Without stumbling into the rat hole associated with some notions
of everyone paying their own marginal participation costs, I
think it is probably time that we start assessing a charge on
those who participate remotely in meetings. I'd hope the fee
could be kept low and accompanied by a generous waiver policy,
but remote attendees at meetings (distinct from those whose
participation is mailing-list-only) do cause costs and get many
of the advantages of in-person participation. I don't have
enough data to be able to count but I'd assume that charging us
(I don't expect to be in Honolulu), say, $100 or $150 would
produce about as much revenue as a $50 increase in fees on those
who do attend and would send much better messages about
investment, skin in the game, and shared costs than continuing
to assume that those who attend meetings in person should pay
and everyone else should get a free ride. Those numbers come
close to a favorable comparison with the excess fees on many
airlines, even before one starts thinking about actual airfares.
best,
john