On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
As someone who argued against mentioning registration fees when Alissa shared a draft, you can at least partially blame me for the oddity. I still don't think it belongs in this message, because what we face at the moment is data so noisy that we can't tell how many people we're serving at all nor who and where they are. Because we can't tell who we're serving, we can't tell whether the service is fit for the purpose very easily.
Personally, I feel it indirectly and appropriately mentions fees, it says; "Remote participants would be required to register (for free)"
If they are primarily folks in the hotel, who can't be in two rooms at once, we have one set of issues; if they are primarily folks at the end of low bandwidth, high RTT paths to the venue, we have a very different set of issues. We also don't know reliably whether we have a small coterie of very dedicated remote participants or a wide smattering of folks dipping their toes in for a session or two.
You mention the "be in two rooms at once" use case, but given the proposed information to be requested for registration, how would you capture that use case? Maybe you should ask that directly, like; "Are you also attending the meeting in person?"
Country of residence is asked for, but it sounds like you really want to know where they will be viewing from, not where they live. For some set of use cases they will be aligned, but others they won't.
There is another important use case, similar to "be in two rooms at once", that is a temporary need to leave the meeting site, such as to receive medical treatment for chronic conditions or simply just other business in the meeting city. As someone who has recently began needing treatment while traveling. You frequently have little choice over when a treatment slot is made available to you, usually you have to take what they can give you. Good remote participation options, make this less burdensome.
Thanks
Once we have it, there may be many things in the set of ways to support the service that come to light; since those might be fund raising from external parties rather than charging, I don't think we ought to anticipate that stage at this one.Hope that makes sense,Ted
...
> The proposal is as follows:
>
> Remote participants would be required to register (for free) by providing the information below (* denotes required fields). Registration would be mandatory to access MeetEcho sessions in real time and to join the remote mic queue during a session.
>
> Title
> First / Given Name*
> Last / Family Name*
> Company / Organization
> ISO 3166 Country of Residence*
> Email*
> Gender
> Have you attended an IETF meeting in person before?
> Have you attended an IETF meeting remotely before?
>
> Upon registering, participants would be issued a registration ID, just as they are today.
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================