On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:39 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I've no problem with the badge being checked, and I think, at least in my > case, it has been done in a very non-intrusive way. It increase the security > for our personal staff and IETF/hosts properties, so that's good and it also > helps to avoid people not paying to enter for free. > > However, I'm more concerned about something related. I've been observing > since several meetings ago that some people that show as "non-paid" have got > their badges (or at least I see them in the meetings), and I think some of > them appear in many consecutive meetings. > > I understand that a small number of people is part of the host team, or > future host, NOC, etc., and I see they appear as "Comp" and/or Host. > > Not sure if Comp stands for Complementary? If that's the case, I think it > needs to be MORE obvious if is just complementary for an unknown (to most of > us I guess) reason or is all part of the host/next host/NOC.
Dear Jordi; It's American slang for complementary. It is generally viewed as a verb, but generally used as an adjective (as in, "he wanted a comped ticket for his efforts"). Hosts get comped tickets, which they of course are really paying for in their sponsorship. Some full-time volunteers also get comped tickets. They work incredibly hard to make the meeting a success and I, for one, do not begrudge them that. Please note that the IAOC does not get comped tickets. Regards Marshall > > I will use a more clear rations, such as "NOC", "host", "n. host" and I > think the community needs to understand, for the rest of the cases, what it > means complementary and why is that done (not sure if there is an RFC that > states "special complementary cases"). > > Why I'm asking this is that observing the 15$ increase in the cost of IETF, > vs. the number of "comp" folks (across certain number of meetings), we could > have saved that attendance cost increase. > > Note that I'm not saying "comp" should not be done, but we need a more clear > rational/explanation about that, not only for cost reasons but also for > making sure that when we see someone in the meeting rooms that hasn't paid, > we can make sure that is not someone "faking" the system and attending at > our expenses. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> Organization: University of Auckland >> Reply-To: <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:09:46 +1300 >> To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org> >> Cc: <i...@ietf.org> >> Subject: Badges and blue sheets >> >> On 2010-11-12 12:32, Lawrence Conroy wrote: >> ... >>> Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF >>> WG meetings is a big deal? >> >> I think that freeriders attending our meetings without paying their >> share of costs would be a big deal. >> >> I think that patent trolls attending our meetings without identifying >> themselves and signing the blue sheets would be a big deal. >> >> I am very happy to have my badge checked and I would be even happier >> if the blue sheets could be automated. >> >> Brian >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > _______________________________________________ > IAOC mailing list > i...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
