--On Thursday, April 26, 2018 15:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > 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. Remembering that we used to go to considerable lengths to prohibit or inhibit "side events" as a distraction from the IETF's work and that many of the "side events" that occur today cause at least some work for the Secretariat and increase the demands we place on facilities, let me make a counterproposal. This is made more to try to bring the issues that are being raised into focus than as a real proposal but, if the IAOC wanted to consider it, I wouldn't lose any sleep over the idea. We redefine things so that there are two kinds of side events. Type 2 is the "old" variety: no use of IETF facilities, even announcements on bulletin boards, no coordination with the Secretariat, use of the meeting hotel (or venue if different) strongly discouraged or, if it occurs, forcing event organizers to make their own arrangements with the venue with no allowances for adjustments for co-location with the IETF. What the IETF does about registration has no effect on this type of event because there just is no interaction. Type 1 involves the kind of coordination that I infer from Brian's message but anyone applying to set up such a side meeting, asking the Secretariat for room or scheduling assistance, or wanting to make arrangements with a venue or hotel on the coattails of IETF contracts initiates those actions with an application to IAOC or AMS that is accompanied by a fee of several times the "standards" registration fee. A few "side event" applications at 5 or 10K USD each in addition to registration fees for those attending would, presumably, justify the costs of giving out preliminary registration numbers to people making notices of intent to attend. If the IAOC wer4 to make a nominal charge for such notices (as a deposit to be credited against the registration fee when paid), it might also help... and, in combination with the rest, have a noticeable benefit to the bottom line. Again, mostly just a thought to clarify the issues and one that should probably come with a disclaimer than I've never liked the idea of side meetings (or highly organized pseudo-BOFs or pseudo-bar-BOFs that require space but don't go through the normal review, approval, and agenda processes and the expectation of minutes) so I'd consider making them harder a benefit. But, if we are going to complain (or even notice) that changes in registration models inconvenience side meetings or their organizers, we should also be considering the incremental costs of such meetings and probably discussing how to recover those costs (and whether it makes sense to make money on them). best, john
