Mostly, this is just "+1" -- but I'll expand on a few things... John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > As a periodic remote participant, some observations: > > First, the big costs to me of a f2f meetin are associated with > being away from home, getting on airplanes (for some medical > reasons, especially bad news when the meeting is outside North > America) and staying in a hotel. The registration fees have > crept up well beyond the historical nuisance and cookie charge, > but are still close to the noise of overall expenses. +1 Note also that visa problems are real! Even those able to clear the time and cover the expense may find themselves prohibited from attending in person. > Second, I would actually prefer to be formally registered and > paying some reasonable remote participate registration fee. I'm > prefer to be recorded as attending sessions I attend and > participate in, whether by my name going on the blue sheet with > an asterisk or by some other mechanism. I don't like the idea > of others (or even their companies) subsidizing me and would > prefer to be in a situation in which there were established > conventions about what, as a remote participant, I have the > right to expect.i +1 > In general, people have been _very_ good about it, but, when the > audio isn't working for the first session on Monday morning > (from my observations, a common problem) I believe that I, > and remote participants who are more shy about complaining than > I am, should feel that we are entitled to have that situation > treated as a major, probably session-stopping, problem, on a par > with the in-room lights or projector not working or no one in > the room being able to hear a speaker. +1 This problem is endemic with the first Monday sessions, and would be _so_ easy to fix! > Similar comments apply to not being able to make a comment or > ask a question during a meeting because of the way the > microphone lines are being managed. +1 Being prevented from asking timely questions _is_ the difference between attendance and participation. > Now I do think that having some fee waiver systems for hardships > is important, but actually no more important than having similar > arrangements for hardship waivers for in-person attendees. +1 > And I don't think people who just want to listen (or watch) > remotely should be charged or asked to identify themselves as > the price for doing so. +1 >... > But, if nothing else, in the interest of openness and fairness, > those who are _participating_ remotely ought to be registered > (like everyone else), identified as participating in specific > WG sessions when they do so (like everyone else), and that it > is entirely reasonable that there be a corresponding registration > fee (as for everyone else). +1 (but that fee need not cover the cookies... ;^) -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>