Mostly, this is just "+1" -- but I'll expand on a few things...
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
As a periodic remote participant, some observations:
First, the big costs to me of a f2f meetin are associated with
being away from home, getting on airplanes (for some medical
reasons, especially bad news when the meeting is outside North
America) and staying in a hotel. The registration fees have
crept up well beyond the historical nuisance and cookie charge,
but are still close to the noise of overall expenses.
+1
Note also that visa problems are real! Even those able to clear
the time and cover the expense may find themselves prohibited from
attending in person.
Second, I would actually prefer to be formally registered and
paying some reasonable remote participate registration fee. I'm
prefer to be recorded as attending sessions I attend and
participate in, whether by my name going on the blue sheet with
an asterisk or by some other mechanism. I don't like the idea
of others (or even their companies) subsidizing me and would
prefer to be in a situation in which there were established
conventions about what, as a remote participant, I have the
right to expect.i
+1
In general, people have been _very_ good about it, but, when the
audio isn't working for the first session on Monday morning
(from my observations, a common problem) I believe that I,
and remote participants who are more shy about complaining than
I am, should feel that we are entitled to have that situation
treated as a major, probably session-stopping, problem, on a par
with the in-room lights or projector not working or no one in
the room being able to hear a speaker.
+1
This problem is endemic with the first Monday sessions, and
would be _so_ easy to fix!
Similar comments apply to not being able to make a comment or
ask a question during a meeting because of the way the
microphone lines are being managed.
+1
Being prevented from asking timely questions _is_ the difference
between attendance and participation.
Now I do think that having some fee waiver systems for hardships
is important, but actually no more important than having similar
arrangements for hardship waivers for in-person attendees.
+1
And I don't think people who just want to listen (or watch)
remotely should be charged or asked to identify themselves as
the price for doing so.
+1
...
But, if nothing else, in the interest of openness and fairness,
those who are _participating_ remotely ought to be registered
(like everyone else), identified as participating in specific
WG sessions when they do so (like everyone else), and that it
is entirely reasonable that there be a corresponding registration
fee (as for everyone else).
+1
(but that fee need not cover the cookies... ;^)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>