free waiver

[mirjak]

I think it could be good to add a statement that any free option needs to be well communicated and that there is at least anecdotal evidence that due to the late changes and potentially unclear communication some people did not register to IETF-108 as they were just note aware of the free waiver.

[jdreed]

I can rework 94e0e1d which was in the original PR to fit this. I wonder if we can make any SHOULD-style (even though this is a BCP, not RFC) statements about whether the free option should require additional steps. Is "applying for a fee waiver" a barrier? Probably not.

[mirjak]

The point about requiring no additional steps was hinting at the same point as you were also trying to make when taking about the free waiver - it should be easy to to find the free registration option as oppose to we have this hidden secret way to registered for free but we make it hard to find and don't advertise anywhere in order to minimise its use. Maybe it's more useful to add more text on this level (then trying to say what when wrong last time)...?

We could use SHOULD in a BCP but given the current content is meant as a kind of principle and not implementation guidance of any fee structure or registration process I would think it's not needed or maybe even better to not have. I would propose to not have normative language for the -00 and see what people comment and if the groups things there is a need to given more concrete guidance and requirements we would add more stuff later... okay?

[mirjak]

Feel free to put another PR on this in!

[jdreed]

Added #6

[mirjak]

PR merged. I think we are ready to submit a -00 ...?

[jdreed]

Yup, I think we're good to submit a -00, thanks.

[richsalz]

A few minor tweaks in #7. Either way, good to go.