First, I wanted to agree with what Pat said: > While generally IETF is helped by cross pollination and multi-day attendance > is a good thing to encourage, there are times when the work of a particular > group is helped by the attendance of some subject matter experts who are only > interested in the topic of that group and who would not be willing or able to > attend for the week. A day pass at around 1/2 the full week registration fee > does something for the one day attendee while still encouraging full > attendance. > > That seems to be a reasonable compromise to me - though given the choice > between having a stable agenda more than a month before the meeting and a day > pass, I think the former would be more helpful for single subject attendees.
Secondly, the day pass rates are a combination of a number of partially conflicting factors, including: - the desire to help cross-pollination - the desire to attract more participants (and more diverse participation) - the desire to make attending easy for everyone - costs: the combination of fixed costs (e.g., RFC Editor), fixed meeting costs (e.g., site selection), and variable meeting costs (e.g., size of rooms) - pricing: what attendees find as a reasonable fee and how it compares to their other costs, such as travel; avoiding competing with the full week option - setting up meetings only as a place to do work vs. as a part of funding a bigger system (e.g., editor staff, tools development) - … Are we at the right spot? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think the current settings are at least in the ballpark. 1/5 price for a day ticket would certainly be a bad choice, IMO. Something between 2/5 to 3/5 is probably the right area, and I think we are there. And don't forget that we also have Fellows/Guest programs... I also tend to agree with Pat that the practical matters are more relevant than whether the day pass costs 100$ more or less. I'd rather work on those matters than the price. Jari
