We already have a version of "self-pay", namely the very low student rate. For
that rate, you are supposed to show student ID (not sure how and whether this
is enforced), so it's not quite the same, but it's a "means-based" test, as
well as an attempt to increase the diversity of participants. Nearly every
scientific conference has versions of differentiated pricing - special rates
for authors, attendees from low-income countries, students, society members
(i.e., likely repeat attendees), ... In those venues, the general rule of thumb
for organizers is that even the lowest priced category pays for the variable
costs, and the fixed costs are borne by those more able to pay.
We also have the early-registration rate - thus, late and on-site registrations
"subsidize" the early bird moochers.
We presumably want to encourage building a community, and that includes making
it possible for people to attend who might not otherwise be able to. Our
objective is not one-time revenue optimization. Many individuals switch
back-and-forth between traveling on their own dime and on corporate tabs, and
we want to encourage continued engagement, if only to increase our supply of
Nomcom-eligibles.
Thus, I think this is worth exploring, as an experiment, just like we started
the day-pass experiment a number of years ago.
Henning
I'm not talking about posting this info on web, nor a "full range of
potential". We already have multiple reg-fee categories; I'm talking about
adding *one* more. I don't know who in the "leadership" can see a list of
what rates people paid - if we need to constrain that, that's a solvable
problem. It's not the sky falling.
Regardless, the same argument can be made for charging remote participants to
"donate" 0-100% or whatever.
-hadriel