Bob
Is there any data to tell us whether these one-day passes were
targeting a specific WG or day of converged scheduling in which a key
number of WGs met within an area?
It might be quite useful to know if day-passers were targeting a WG
(and if so, which WG) or were just taking in whatever was on the day
they wanted to (or could) attend.
James
At 02:59 PM 11/22/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
As part of the IAOC presentation in Beijing, I said that the IAOC
will be making a decision on Day Passes in the middle of
December. I would like your feedback on this.
As reported in Beijing, the goal of the Day Pass experiment is to
"Goal is to access convenience to IETF attendees without significant
impact on revenue"
Usage has been:
124 in Hiroshima ($200)
135 in Anaheim ($200)
71 in Maastricht ($350)
47 in Beijing ($350)
While this looks like a trend toward lower usage (possibly driven by
higher fees), it's hard to tell if this trend will continue or reverse.
Possible reasons to continue offering Day Passes:
- No significant negative impact on overall revenue. Hard to tell what
percentage of people would buy full registration instead.
- Useful for people buying the day passes.
Possible reasons to discontinue offering Day Passes:
- Caused unexpected effect on Nomcom qualification.
- Encourages drop in for a single session and discourages full
IETF experience,
meetings in the hall, and cross area fertilization.
- Not being used heavily.
- Could impact revenue if usage increased.
I appreciate you feedback. Feedback can be sent to me directly, the
IAOC list (iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org), or to the IETF list (ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org). Try
to avoid all three :-)
Thanks,
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf