Subject: On Day Passes..

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:59:41 -0600

Figured I'd be the one to kick a thread off on this fascinating topic :-)

I like the idea of day passes, it's not just about the cost of the day pass and all it avails, if someone is only coming to the IETF meeting for a day (e.g., they only want a day pass because they have a time constraining day job or actual fiscal constraints), then why should they be required to pay a fee to subsidize meeting costs for the entire week?  

The work happens on the mailing lists, consensus is judged on the mailing list, and remote participation is encouraged as well.  

And if you buy a day pass, you should certainly be nomcom eligible.

-danny

---

From: "Ed Juskevicius" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:07:45 -0400

I might be talked into agreeing with most of your points, but I am not
convinced that "if you buy a day pass, you should certainly be nomcom
eligible."

How about replacing "should certainly" with "may"?

Regards,

Ed  J. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Danny McPherson
Sent: March-24-10 10:00 PM
To: The IETF
Subject: On Day Passes..

I like the idea of day passes, it's not just about the cost of the day pass
and all it avails, if someone is only coming to the IETF meeting for a day
(e.g., they only want a day pass because they have a time constraining day
job or actual fiscal constraints), then why should they be required to pay a
fee to subsidize meeting costs for the entire week?  

The work happens on the mailing lists, consensus is judged on the mailing
list, and remote participation is encouraged as well.  

-danny
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:10:00 -0700 (PDT)

Multiple-days should be allowed ... it makes no sense to offer day passes 
to folks with just one day to attend but not to those with 2 or even 3. I 
used a day pass this year and didn't participate in a 2nd WG because two
day passes weren't allowed. Don't know if I could justify paying the full 
week fee if a Day pass wasn't offered. If I'd been allowed to have 2 day
passes, I'd have contributed 10x the green dot campaign value.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:11:30 -0400

> How about replacing "should certainly" with "may"?

How about "Two day passes are equivalent to one full meeting" for  
nomcom eligibility ?

Note that that would imply that a person with only day passes would  
not be eligible.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:12:22 -0800

Danny McPherson wrote:
> The work happens on the mailing lists, consensus is judged on the mailing list, and 
 > participation is encouraged as well.

Welllll ....  Yes, that's the policy, but it's unclear to me
that that's the actual practice in every working group and in every
area.  If we're going to predicate another policy on the work
being mailing list-centric, we should probably make certain
that's actually the case.  I know there are individuals who've
contributed heavily without ever attending meetings but I think
that's rather unusual and hasn't happened recently to my knowledge.

> And if you buy a day pass, you should certainly be nomcom eligible.

I think this is a similar question.  If mailing lists provide
really do provide engagement and participation in the process, I
think that's true.  If they don't, it's not.  On the other hand
the requirement for attendance to serve on nomcom provides its
own answer to that question, I think.

As I said, I'm ambivalent about this.  I think for a lot of people
it's not the money, it's the time, and providing day passes seems
to recognize and support that.

Melinda

---

From: songhaibin 64081 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:14:44 +0800

I agree with the necessary of Day Passes.

Haibin 

> The work happens on the mailing lists, consensus is judged on the 
> mailinglist, and remote participation is encouraged as well.  
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:15:33 -0400

On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:10 PM, David Morris wrote:

> day passes weren't allowed.

Did you ask ?

Regards
Marshall

> Don't know if I could justify paying the full
>> I like the idea of day passes, it's not just about the cost of the  
>> day pass and all it avails, if someone is only coming to the IETF  
>> meeting for a day (e.g., they only want a day pass because they  
>> have a time constraining day job or actual fiscal constraints),  
>> then why should they be required to pay a fee to subsidize meeting  
>> costs for the entire week?
>>
>> mailing list, and remote participation is encouraged as well.
>>

---

From: songhaibin 64081 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:17:30 +0800

> 
> Multiple-days should be allowed ...

Sure!

BR,
Haibin

 it makes no sense to offer day 
> passes 
> > I like the idea of day passes, it's not just about the cost of 
> the day pass and all it avails, if someone is only coming to the 
> IETF meeting for a day (e.g., they only want a day pass because 
> they have a time constraining day job or actual fiscal 
> constraints), then why should they be required to pay a fee to 
> subsidize meeting costs for the entire week?  
> > 
> > The work happens on the mailing lists, consensus is judged on 
> the mailing list, and remote participation is encouraged as well.  
> >

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:21:05 -0700 (PDT)

Yes ... in fact if you look at early announce mataterial vs. later I 
believe the 'limit one' was added after I rattled the cage.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> > > I like the idea of day passes, it's not just about the cost of the day
> > > pass and all it avails, if someone is only coming to the IETF meeting for
> > > a day (e.g., they only want a day pass because they have a time
> > > constraining day job or actual fiscal constraints), then why should they
> > > be required to pay a fee to subsidize meeting costs for the entire week?
> > >

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:07:55 -0500

> believe the 'limit one' was added after I rattled the cage.

Disclaimer... much like site selection, this is an IAOC responsibility that 
I have no direct experience with, but ...

First, the math.

At about the time David asked about a second day pass, I was in San 
Francisco for a week, and happened to be riding BART. Their fare structure 
looked something like this (from memory, but work with me here):

One trip, one way: $5
One trip, two way: $7
One day, unlimited: $10
Three days, unlimited: $20
Seven days, unlimited: $28

So basically the strategy was "don't charge a tourist $28 to get on a bus, 
but quickly make it worth the tourist's while to get a one-day ticket unless 
you're SURE you won't touch the bus more than to-and-from that day, and 
quickly make it worth the tourist's while to get a seven-day pass unless 
you're leaving town after three days".

So a month ago, I was wondering about something like

one day pass: $300
two day pass: $500
all week pass: $645 or whatever I paid this time

We might (in some cases, please see below for details) want to give some 
people a break sometimes, but quickly move most people to a full-week rate.

NOW: please forget all my math long enough to think about these points:

We seem to be awash in a sea of unintended consequences, not all good and 
not all bad, so tuning may be helpful.

If the goal is to provide access to the IETF for first-time attendees, maybe 
we should make day passes available for first-time attendees.

If the goal is to make sure that unemployed chairs, working group draft 
editors, and maybe even I-star members can come to IETF and contribute 
seriously to getting work done, maybe we should have an application 
procedure requesting a reduced registration price for the full week, similar 
to what we have for students today.

If we limit day passes to first-time attendees, they probably won't learn 
much less about IETF culture in their first IETF meeting than people who do 
what I did for several years, and sit in meeting rooms for the whole week, 
so it may make sense to have a first-time day pass count for NomCom 
eligibility. Beyond that, you're talking about someone who is missing a lot 
of what we do when we're trying to work for the benefit of the Internet, and 
who would be participating in NomCom with a significant hole in his/her 
cultural and workflow understanding, so it may make sense that only the 
first pass counts.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:04:06 +0000

> that's rather unusual and hasn't happened recently to my knowledge.
I think you're safe in updating your knowledge.

I suspect that many of the serious contributors in XMPP are likely to  
never attend a meeting, for example. (In no small part because many  
of them are open-source implementors).

Incidentally, NomCom eligibility covers more than simply NomCom  
itself - NomCom eligibility is used to control, for example, who may  
sign a recall petition, which has no bearing on attendence of  
physical meetings.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:05:22 +0000

On Thu Mar 25 10:07:55 2010, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> If the goal is to make sure that unemployed chairs, working group  
> draft editors, and maybe even I-star members can come to IETF and  
> contribute seriously to getting work done, maybe we should have an  
> application procedure requesting a reduced registration price for  
> the full week, similar to what we have for students today.
> 
> 
There's also the case of people who have perfectly reasonable  
employment, but unrelated to their IETF work. Open-source  
implementors are a clear case - many of them would have to be  
self-funded in order to attend an IETF, and that's a big commitment  
(I know, I did it once). I'm afraid I see a big hole in several  
working groups where the implementors should be, and that needs  
rectifying badly.

Dave.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:36:13 +0200

> to what we have for students today.

I have to wonder about this. Unless the meeting happens to be close to home, the travel costs are going to dominate your expenses. If you are from California, getting to Anaheim may be cheap, but getting to Maastricht in July is different. I tried Expedia with LAX-AMS-LAX. Cheapest I could find was $1530 for the week, and flying for a day makes it even more expensive - over $2000.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:18:13 -0700 (PDT)

> we should make day passes available for first-time attendees.

I think that would be the wrong goal, though I'll admit it motivated the 
original experiment.

The goal should be to maximize the amount of expertise which can 
particiate as fully as possible for whatever the economic reasoning they
may not be able or wish to stay all week. I know that when I hung around 
all week and sat in a week of WG meetings, I was not prepared for many
of the meetings I sat in on, but at times felt I had something to 
contribute. I never had time to follow-up so even if my points were valid,
there was no advocacy on the mailing list, etc. I don't think this helped
the IETF.

As a consultant, activities like the IETF, which are funded by my business
so are technically employer sponsored, impact my personal bottom line. In
addition, any day I'm not working for a client is lost income. Had 
multiple day passes been permitted, I would have stayed for the extra WG 
meeting, but $450 vs $200 + an extra day in the hotel, rental car, and 
lost revenue was enough to disuade me from sticking around.

Given the campaign to sell green dots, it seems to be pretty short sighted 
to not sell extra days. My extra day would have been worth 10 green dot 
sales and my onsite contributions might have been worth something as well.
The marginal cost of my being present for an extra day in terms of any
hotel fees based on number of participants in the refreshment process 
would have been quite low.

If you really want a first time attendee program, make is really low cost 
or free. Enought to cover the marginal refreshment costs. Don't limit
it to 1 day, use special colored badges so everyone else can easily 
recognize the newbies and welcome them.

Dave Morris

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:20:19 -0500

When I self-funded to Vienna, the airline costs were very sensitive to 
whether I was traveling on two weekends or (as I finally did travel) on a 
Thursday/Tuesday.

And Carl Williams graciously put me up for the Sunday-Thursday of the IETF 
week, so airline tickets and registration dominated my total costs for that 
IETF.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yoav Nir" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "The IETF" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: On Day Passes..

> to what we have for students today.

I have to wonder about this. Unless the meeting happens to be close to home, 
the travel costs are going to dominate your expenses. If you are from 
California, getting to Anaheim may be cheap, but getting to Maastricht in 
July is different. I tried Expedia with LAX-AMS-LAX. Cheapest I could find 
was $1530 for the week, and flying for a day makes it even more expensive - 
over $2000.=

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:23:34 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Yoav Nir wrote:

> 
> I have to wonder about this. Unless the meeting happens to be close to
> home, the travel costs are going to dominate your expenses. If you are
> from California, getting to Anaheim may be cheap, but getting to
> Maastricht in July is different. I tried Expedia with LAX-AMS-LAX.
> Cheapest I could find was $1530 for the week, and flying for a day makes
> it even more expensive - over $2000.

But if I can justify a short vacation near Maastricht or on a triangle 
fare with a cheap incremental cost, then the lower day pass approach to
attending 1 or 2 days of the IETF helps make the overall trip cost
more cost effective on a personal basis.

Dave Morris

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:38:53 -0700 (PDT)

Our main reason for running the one-day pass experiment in Japan was a 
desire by our host, WIDE, to bring in "related organizations" to the
IETF process. I don't think anyone expected these attendees to be much
more than "observers", but there was still the hope that they would
report back to their respective organizations and get involved in the
IETF going forward. In Japan, getting permission to be out of the
office for a whole week is a lot more difficult than for just one day,
especially for something that might be only somewhat "related" (that's
probably true in many other places too).

I still believe that it would be good to allow one (or perhaps two) 
day participation for a fee which makes it affordable and possible for
more people to attend, but I recognize that the system may need tuning
and that it is currently possible to "abuse," although historically we
have not been paying too much attention to folks who just show up and
don't pay at all either.

As Henk mentioned, when RIPE introduced one-day passes the net result
was more participation and an overall increase in meeting revenue, but 
I recognize that the IETF is not (yet ? ;-) RIPE.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:28:58 +0100

> I have to wonder about this. Unless the meeting happens to be close to home, the travel costs are going to dominate your expenses. If you are from California, getting to Anaheim may be cheap, but g…

That's true, but the fact that travel costs (and away time) dominate 
just makes the other costs more critical. The impression is that you 
can't do anything about the former, but you might be able to do 
something about the latter.

And yes, one-day passes do not make a lot of sense for people coming 
from far away.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 
> And yes, one-day passes do not make a lot of sense for people coming from far
> away.

Sure the do, they optimize the overall cost picture if you have no reason 
to participate for the full week. You may either make the trip shorter, 
include other business or take vacation time.

But for each location, there are folks relatively local. So the individual 
value of day passes will vary by location, but the overall value to the
community persists.