On Monday, August 19, 2013 18:08:00 John C Klensin wrote: > --On Monday, August 19, 2013 12:49 -0700 SM <s...@resistor.net> > > wrote: > >... > > > >> First, I note that, in some organizations (including some > >> large ones), someone might be working on an open source > >> project one month and a proprietary one the next, or maybe > >> both > >> concurrently. Would it be appropriate for such a person (or > >> the company's CFO) to claim the lower rate, thereby expecting > >> those who pay full rate to subsidize them? Or would their > > > >... > > > > The above reminds me of the Double Irish with a Dutch > > sandwich. If I was an employee of a company I would pay the > > regular fee. If I am sponsored by an open source project and > > my Internet-Draft will have that as my affiliation I would > > claim the lower rate. > > Without understanding your analogy (perhaps a diversity > problem?), if you are trying to make a distinction between > "employee of a company" and "sponsored by an open source > project", that distinction just does not hold up. I'm > particular, some of the most important reference implementations > of Internet protocols -- open source, freely available and > usable, well-documented, openly tested, etc.-- have come out of > "companies", even for-profit companies. > > If the distinction you are really trying to draw has to do with > poverty or the lack thereof, assuming that, if a large company > imposes severe travel restrictions, its employees should pay > full fare if they manage to get approval, then you are back to > Hadriel's suggestion (which more or less requires that someone > self-identify as "poor") or mine (which involves individual > self-assessment of ability to pay without having to identify the > reasons or circumstances). > > >... > > > >> Does it count if the open source software is basically > >> irrelevant to the work of the IETF? Written in, e.g., HTML5? > >> Do reference implementations of IETF protocols count more (if > >> I'm going to be expected to subsidize someone else's > >> attendance at the IETF, I think they should). > > > > This would require setting a demarcation line. That isn't > > always a clear line. > > What I'm trying to suggest is that the line will almost always > be unclear and will require case by case interpretation by > someone other than the would-be participant. I continue to find > any peer evaluation model troubling, especially as long as the > people and bodies who are likely to made the evaluations are > heavily slanted toward a narrow range of participants (and that > will be the case as long as those leadership or evaluation roles > require significant time over long periods). > > > A subsidy is a grant or other financial assistance given by > > one party for the support or development of another. If the > > lower rate is above meeting costs it is not a subsidy. > > I note that you used that term in a later message, More > important, I believe the IAOC has repeatedly assured us that, at > least over a reasonable span of meetings, they never seek to > make a profit on registration fees. Indeed, I suspect that, > with reasonable accounting assumptions, meetings are always a > net money-loser although not my much and more than others. Any > decision that some people are going to pay less than others > (including the reduced fee arrangements we already have) is a > decision that some people and groups are going to bear a higher > share of the costs than others. And that is a subsidy, even by > your definition above.
Speaking as someone who is self-employed and a Free/Open Source software developer: The actual price of the IETF admission is the smallest part of the economic burden associated with attendance. It's not just the travel/hotel (as John Levine mentioned), but also consulting revenue forgone. Even if the price were zero, it wouldn't materially affect my willingness to take time off and travel to an IETF meeting. Even though I've participated in several IETF working groups, I've never been to a meeting and really don't expect to come. The value proposition isn't there (for me). I have participated remotely and it was ~fine. Taking an hour out of my day for something I'm interested in has a completely different cost/benefit ratio that a week of travel. For someone who's used to participating in distributed development efforts, an IETF working group session isn't so hard to do as long as the people in the room are mindful of the remote participants. I wouldn't worry too much about finding a special rate for F/OSS developers. The only time it might make a difference, IME, is for people who are local to the meeting venue and the IETF should already be working on attracting local participants, F/OSS developers or not. Scott K
