Re: [TYPES] online conferences should be free (was: global debriefing over our virtual experience of conferences)
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Michael Hicks wrote: > Beyond the modest fees to run an online conference, which Talia mentions, > conference registration payments serve other purposes. Any surplus goes to > SIGPLAN, which turns around this surplus as good works, e.g., paying the > open access fees for PACMPL, which ICFP benefits from. It also makes > donations to CRA-W, OPLSS, etc. and provides scholarships for PLMW. > On this point I have a simple request: could SIGPLAN release a budget summary for ICFP and PLDI this year? To have an informed discussion on online conference fees, we should know the amounts of the varied costs (including the "good works"), how much money comes in from sponsoring, and how much comes from conference fees. Since I raised the question of conference fees I have heard varied explanations from various people, for example the idea that PLDI was decided to have free registration before the actual conference-running costs were known, and that the $100 fee for ICFP adjusts to cover direct costs better. Your message rather suggests that the direct costs use only a modest fraction of the $100 (or maybe they can be covered entirely by sponsorship ?), but we cannot tell without any actual data. Others suggested that making the conference free was maybe doable for flagship conferences with an industrial presence such as ICFP or PLDI, but that this expectation could be problematic for more theoretical conferences with less sponsors. But then, FSCD and IJCAR reportedly ran fine without registration costs. (I don't think this is an outlandish or surprising request, for example I remember Adam Chlipala making exactly this request during a conference Town Hall a few years ago.) On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:07 PM Gabriel Scherer wrote: > Thanks Mike for bringing clear arguments in favor. > > There was an interesting discussion with Nicolai, Henning and Stefan on > the argument of registration fees helping engagement. I have some short > points to make on this topic: > > 1. This exact argument (price signals value) is given by some high-ranked > universities in the English-speaking part of the world that charge tens of > thousands of dollars of tuition fee and *could* relatively easily cover the > corresponding costs on their endowment money. > > 2. Just like for tuition fees, the slope is slippery. Mike mentioned $25 > (for non-students) to help engagement by making the conference feel > valuable, but now ICFP cost $100; one could argue for POPL'21 registration > fees of $1000 for non-students, to make it *very* valuable as a conference. > (As long as the people making pricing decisions are getting reimbursed for > their registration fees, I guess we could pull this off? > > However, I think that this discussion on engagement is somewhat of a > distraction. Having conference where people participate actively is > certainly a good thing, it is *nice*. But sharing our knowledge and results > in the most open way possible is *a core tenet of our duty as researchers*. > For me it is clear that we should find *other* ways to help engagement that > do not raise the barrier to entry to our conference, because the later is > sensibly more important than the former. > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Michael Hicks wrote: > >> Thanks for raising this issue. Just a few points about the other side of >> the argument: >> >> It’s well known that things that are free are not valued (by humans) as >> much as those that cost something, even a small amount. For example, see >> Dan Ariely’s “Predictably Irrational” which presents the results of several >> experiments that demonstrate this. As a relevant case: Free MOOCs tended to >> have lots of “sign ups” but far fewer attendees, and even fewer completers. >> >> As such, if the goal is to have engaged attendees, trying to come closer >> to the experience of traditional conferences, it might make sense to charge >> something, even a small amount like $25, for at least some of the >> population. This population might be people who have lots of social capital >> already, and are generally busy, so they are more likely to blow off the >> conference if they paid nothing for signing up. Such people might be those >> that more junior attendees wish to meet. >> >> I note that engaged attendance was a goal when we had in-person >> conferences, so I don’t see why we’d want to drop it now. Indeed, if people >> don’t want to be engaged the videos will be available for free, afterward. >> >> Beyond the modest fees to run an online conference, which Talia mentions, >> conference registration payments serve other purposes. Any surplus goes to >> SIGPLAN, which turns around this surplus as good works, e.g., paying the >> open access fees for PACMPL, which ICFP benefits from. It also makes >> donations to CRA-W, OPLSS, etc. and provides scholarships for PLMW. >> >> Corporate sponsors
Re: [TYPES] online conferences should be free (was: global debriefing over our virtual experience of conferences)
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] Thanks Mike for bringing clear arguments in favor. There was an interesting discussion with Nicolai, Henning and Stefan on the argument of registration fees helping engagement. I have some short points to make on this topic: 1. This exact argument (price signals value) is given by some high-ranked universities in the English-speaking part of the world that charge tens of thousands of dollars of tuition fee and *could* relatively easily cover the corresponding costs on their endowment money. 2. Just like for tuition fees, the slope is slippery. Mike mentioned $25 (for non-students) to help engagement by making the conference feel valuable, but now ICFP cost $100; one could argue for POPL'21 registration fees of $1000 for non-students, to make it *very* valuable as a conference. (As long as the people making pricing decisions are getting reimbursed for their registration fees, I guess we could pull this off? However, I think that this discussion on engagement is somewhat of a distraction. Having conference where people participate actively is certainly a good thing, it is *nice*. But sharing our knowledge and results in the most open way possible is *a core tenet of our duty as researchers*. For me it is clear that we should find *other* ways to help engagement that do not raise the barrier to entry to our conference, because the later is sensibly more important than the former. On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Michael Hicks wrote: > Thanks for raising this issue. Just a few points about the other side of > the argument: > > It’s well known that things that are free are not valued (by humans) as > much as those that cost something, even a small amount. For example, see > Dan Ariely’s “Predictably Irrational” which presents the results of several > experiments that demonstrate this. As a relevant case: Free MOOCs tended to > have lots of “sign ups” but far fewer attendees, and even fewer completers. > > As such, if the goal is to have engaged attendees, trying to come closer > to the experience of traditional conferences, it might make sense to charge > something, even a small amount like $25, for at least some of the > population. This population might be people who have lots of social capital > already, and are generally busy, so they are more likely to blow off the > conference if they paid nothing for signing up. Such people might be those > that more junior attendees wish to meet. > > I note that engaged attendance was a goal when we had in-person > conferences, so I don’t see why we’d want to drop it now. Indeed, if people > don’t want to be engaged the videos will be available for free, afterward. > > Beyond the modest fees to run an online conference, which Talia mentions, > conference registration payments serve other purposes. Any surplus goes to > SIGPLAN, which turns around this surplus as good works, e.g., paying the > open access fees for PACMPL, which ICFP benefits from. It also makes > donations to CRA-W, OPLSS, etc. and provides scholarships for PLMW. > > Corporate sponsors can indeed pay some costs, but they also have > downsides. We are finding that many sponsors are not interested in > necessarily giving that much, and some are starting to make demands on how > the conference is run for their modest donation. This is a slippery slope > that the SIGPLAN EC is trying to avoid. > > Given that PLDI was completely free and ICFP followed a progressive fee > schedule, I’ll be curious to compare the ICFP outbrief with that of PLDI’s, > to see how the registration fee affected attendance. > > Thanks, > -Mike > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:25 AM Talia Ringer > wrote: > >> [ The Types Forum, >> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] >> >> >> >> I don't know about PLDI, but there are some costs associated with online >> >> events. For example, automatic captioning software is still not very good >> >> (Google's always turns "proofs" into "fruits" for me). Live captioning is >> >> really expensive! But it's also hugely important for disability >> >> accessibility. >> >> >> >> For students, ICFP was essentially free. I do agree that in principle, >> >> online conferences should be free, and online components of hybrid >> >> conferences should be free or strongly discounted. In practice, though, I >> >> do think that will mean finding sponsors for hidden costs that really are >> >> necessary. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 7:07 AM Gabriel Scherer < >> gabriel.sche...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > [ The Types Forum, >> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list >> >> > ] >> >> > >> >> > Dear types-list, >> >> > >> >> > Going on a tangent from Flavien's earlier post: I really think that >> online >> >> > conferences should be free. >> >> > >> >> > Several conferences (PLDI for example) managed to run free-of-charge >> since >> >> > the pandemic started, and they reported
Re: [TYPES] online conferences should be free
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] Dear all, Since Nicolai's post brought up pre-recorded talks:I found it extremely difficult to allocate enough time *prior* to the actual conference to watch almost any of the talks I was interested in - and there were about 10 I really wanted to see. Attending live talks (whether in person or online) during the conference days when the participation is the sole focus is very different from having to watch the talks beforehand; the latter essentially amounts to having a bunch of homework assigned. In the weeks prior to LICS I was relocating between continents and did not have time to watch any talks except one. This meant I was playing catch-up the entire time and was not able to get anything meaningful out of the conference itself. Hence I would most likely choose not to participate in this format again, regardless of how much it cost (or didn't). It is entirely possible however that I am in the minority and most participants were much better prepared. Best, Kristina On 8/24/2020 6:18 PM, Nicolai Kraus wrote: [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Henning Basold wrote: All I objected to is that this investment has to come in form of monetary contributions and that this was presented as unavoidable reality. Instead, an investment can come, as you rightly say, in the form of time or community ties. If one watches all pre-recorded talks (assuming something like at LICS - pre-recorded talks instead of live talks), one is more likely to participate actively. But this just shifts the problem, so I'm not sure if it helps in any way. At the same time, one can maybe from anonymous questionnaires or even simple view counts predict how well-prepared participants are and how seriously they will take the conference. I don't know whether that information could be used to improve the conference. Nicolai
