Subject: RE: Bottom feeders

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 18:07:53 +0200

> I know that in the past we have discouraged the notion of a per day
> attendance fee because it is an administrative nightmare.  Requiring
> additional staff to stand at each meeting room to screen badges, ...
	[Dan]  Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be an
administrative nightmare? Like Monday = green, Tuesday = Yellow,...,Blue =
the whole week. I do not think that this would require more badge screening
than today.  This would certainly encourage a more focused participation
planning.

	Dan

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:03:08 -0500

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]> writes:
    Dan> 	[Dan]  Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be an
    Dan> administrative nightmare? Like Monday = green, Tuesday = Yellow,...,Blue =
    Dan> the whole week. I do not think that this would require more badge screening
    Dan> than today.  This would certainly encourage a more focused participation
    Dan> planning.

  That would be fine, but there are three problems that I see:
  1) schedule changes (such as to get a group into a bigger room, to add
       additional time for issues, etc.) would be impossible.

  2) it doesn't make the hotel issue any easier, as we have less buying
       power.

  3) It guarantees that newcomers will not be there on Sunday for an
    orientation session.

  I like the idea of encouraging more interum meetings.

] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|gigabit is no[
]   Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems   Oh where, oh where has|problem  with[
]     [email-masked]   www.solidum.com   the little fishy gone?|PAX.port 1100[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:08:08 -0800

as no one has mentioned this approach, i figured to add to the non-
productive confusion as follows:

nanog had an analogous crowding issue.  the organizers looked at the problem
and said

  the goal is not to become large, the goal is to maintain quality

  but one does not want to disenfranchise any particular constituency

so nangog gets space for about 500 people, allows just that many to
register, and it's first register first serve.

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:52:19 -0600

I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
until very late, or whatever, among those who are absolutely needed
(i.e. document authors etc.). So we would need rules about who gets in
regardless of the limit, and I don't see any way out of the discussion
that would generate.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 08:46:08 +1100

Date:        Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:52:19 -0600
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
  | works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
  | until very late, or whatever,

No, the effect would be to make IETF registration work the same way that
booking a room in the IETF hotel works today - the instant registration
opens everyone books .. then cancel later if unable to attend.  The effect
of a limit would be more to prefer those who operate in an advantageous
timezone to the opening of registration over others who don't.

kre

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:58:50 -0800

Workshops with restricted attendance often seem to have a two-tiered
policy: authors/panelists first, rest later on a space-available basis.
This unfortunately, for the IETF, has obvious gaming potential which the
I-D editor is not likely to appreciate. Relying on drafts to be
discussed at a WG doesn't work, as that's decided way too late in most
cases. (Any restriction, based on content or anything but cut-off dates,
is likely to cause concerns about openness and equal access, which
presumably NANOG does not have to deal with.)

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> -
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which
> is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:04:15 -0800

> regardless of the limit, and I don't see any way out of the discussion

not really.  one can always cancel hotel rooms, registrations, ...

but this was not meant as a strong suggestion, merely an idea which had yet
to be mentioned.

randy