Front posting to say I agree with John that side meetings may (or may not) be problematic in themselves. Regards Brian On 27/04/2018 01:03, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --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 > > > > > . >
