On 24/04/2018 13:39, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:03 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Or try the other end. For IETF-type meetings, it is not unusual
>> for a travel-approver to want to see at least a preliminary
>> agenda along with the travel request. On our current schedule,
>> the preliminary agenda shows up about four weeks before the
>> meeting and the nominally final one shows up a week later, but
>> before the "early" registration cutoff. If that boundary is
>> moved back, than no one who needs an agenda to make a decision,
>> or to persuade someone else to make a positive decision, then it
>> is all over for "early" and the window before "standard" is not
>> available is rather short.
>
> This seems like a feature, not a bug. People whose companies have expensive processes like this can afford to pay full price; they don't need the early bird discount. If you don't tell them about it they'll never know that if they'd had a less rigid process they could have saved $200.
That varies very widely, but sadly it might work the other way: even if
it's internal procedure that causes you to miss the early-bird deadline,
some companies I can think of would still ding you for paying full rate.
I agree that the IETF isn't obliged to pander to corporate stupidity,
however. Nevertheless, my gut tells me that shifting this deadline to
roughly the middle of the inter-meeting gap will hurt a number of
attendees.
(That said: Thanks to IASA for bringing this up for discussion well in
advance.)
> Also, FWIW, unless your travel approver is a lot more diligent than most, the information you get from the working group summaries, which are due on the Friday at the end of IETF, should be sufficient for a travel report.
Again, expectations and requirements vary. Personally I've always written
my own IETF trip reports promptly; since I've had a laptop, they've
usually been finished before I get home.
Brian
