Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re:

Personally, I think those of us that can't eat the cookies should be in a
priority queue for the ice cream.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> Christer,
>
> I think we should start with an experiment where it clearly counts -
> getting rid of ice cream neutrality.
> That's something where speed really matters ;-)
>
> Alia
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <
> christer(_dot_)holmberg(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> >   I suggest we get rid of cookie neutrality. The more you pay, the
> > faster access you have to the cookies...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> >  ------------------------------
> > From: Nico Williams <nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com>
> > Sent: ‎27/‎02/‎2015 08:08
> > To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> > Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 
> > diversity(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation
> > (was Re: Remote participation fees)
> >
> >   On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > > Thanks. IMHO participants  in IETF are in two categories: individuals
> > and
> > > companies, both needs to have diversity. I think IETF has shortage in
> > It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are individuals.
> >
> > Many a participant's participation is funded by their employer, and in
> > the process faithfully represent the employer's interests.  But the
> > participants are individual persons.
> >
> > > remote participants and in diversity, so the strategy is that no fees
> > > because IETF needs more diversity.
> > I doubt it, though I don't know.  Remote *meeting* participation tools
> > have to improve in order to be able to charge much at all for *meeting*
> > participation.  But we'd pay if the tools were good enough and the IETF
> > charged for it, or even just if the IETF chaged for it.
> >
> > Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
> > all.  No one is proposing otherwise.
> >
> > > However, the issue in my thoughts is not remote or non-remote or
> > ability to
> > > pay or not (diversity items), but the issue can be about benefits, cost
> > and
> > > payment return/outcome. For example, usually remote participants attend
> > but
> > > the outcome is less than others. In business and organisation what
> > matters
> > > is utilization of time, money, and attendance. People in business meet
> > for
> > > many reasons and different methods. All IETF participants attending
> > meeting
> > > physically have different utilization but pay the same fee. I think that
> > > makes limited attendance. Now days Internet services changing to you pay
> > > for what you use only, so could IETF offer that?
> > Fees are the least of the *meeting* participation costs.  Flights and
> > hotels are the large majority of the cost (ignoring cost of opportunity,
> > which may or may not be positive, though I'd assume it's negative in
> > general, else there would be very few meetings indeed).
> >
> > > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from
> > the
> > > [...]
> > We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
> > don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
> > if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
> > negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
> > or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
> > anyone.)
> >
> > Nico
> > --