John-
Processing those applications would mean lots more work for the
Secretariat. And then there'd be the time spent on people
complaining because they were turned down.
(And, there would be several well-known
categories of folk who would be helped: academics, students,
self-funded, folks from non-profits, whatever)
"Self-funded" is problematic, though: how do you tell the
difference between someone who really is paying his own way and
someone who's going to expense it? And what about a consultant
with his own small business; if he owns the business outright, and
the business pays the way, is that self-funded or not?
Maybe a bit -- but, if you're self funded then you have no
affiliation on your badge.
It would be a bit of extra work, I agree. How much, I have no
idea...
But, let's face it ... we're going to raise the meeting fee to get
our finances in order. And, I was echoing Harald's point that this
could be a Big Deal to some folk. A student I have worked with in
the past funded his way to SF last week and I know was very grateful
for the break in the meeting fee.
I, for one, do not want to eliminate these sorts of people from
attending the meetings because I think they add a different and
useful perspective. So, I would be in favor of having some amount
of wiggle room for folk who ask for it. I will not ask for it (in
my current situation) and would be happy (for my funder) to
subsidize the registration fee for these folk (as I am currently
thrilled to do for students who attend IETF).
I think other organizations make this kind of distinction work by
giving more rights to people who pay more; that would be the
opposite of what we want to do here.
I was specifically thinking of SIGCOMM's student travel grant
program -- in which the above is not the case.
allman
--
Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/