Andrew,
On 26/04/2018 00:06, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I think that's another bit of a bad plan - I see no reason why
>> the ability to buy a social ticket or not, or the ability to register
>> a companion or not, would affect meeting income.
>
> It affects expenses. If you are not registered (i.e. if you didn't
> pay yet) then we have no evidence you're going to come. If you could
> register for ancillary things without having registered for the
> meeting, then if you never register we'd need to have tracked those
> other things and be able to undo them.
Let me just adjust your text to make it more precise:
"If you could register for ancillary things without having *paid* for the
meeting, then if you never *pay* we'd need to have tracked those
other things and be able to undo them."
Correct, and I fully understand that. But a side effect of the change
is that anybody currently using the registration system as a convenience
for arranging a side event can effectively no longer do so until the
7 week deadline, because people *will* pay at the last possible moment
to minimise their credit hit. And people who don't make the 7 week deadline
will then delay until the 2 week deadline. So the side event organiser
won't get attendance mainly settled until the last 2 weeks. They will
see two large spikes in registration corresponding to the two payment
deadlines. (So will IASA, of course.)
I'm not saying that's a disaster. But it is a change not mentioned in
your initial posting.
Brian
> The way that is handled now
> is, "Not well," so the existing tooling and processes are not really a
> consideration.
>
>>
>> PS: I realise my workflow may be a bit of a corner-case, but I'm
>> starting to regret that the IAOC didn't just bump the meeting fee
>> and leave it at that - another US$100 or something on the fee could
>> even work out cheaper for me compared to the time spent dealing more
>> with my local bureaucrats... and for them having to deal more with me
>> too of course;-)
>>
>
> If that's the case, why don't you stick with your current workflow
> using the later rate? It seems to me that you could achieve your goal
> simply by paying more money, no?
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
