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 ] Dear list, I'm writing with excellent news: in the last month ICFP'21 has decided to change its fee structure, which should now include a "discounted $10" option for the whole conference, in line with POPL'21 and PLDI'21 for example. I think this is an excellent compromise. As far as I can tell, thanks are due to the general chair, Sukyoung Ryu, and the ICFP steering committee. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:17 PM Gabriel Scherer wrote: > Dear list, > > Last year I played the unfortunate role of complaining about the $100 > price tag on ICFP'20 registration. There were some great improvements in > further events, for example POPL'21 had "discounted rate: $10" as an > unconditional registration option, and PLDI'21 offers the same option. (I > still wish that there events were free, as is common with other scientific > conferences like FSCD'20, IJCAR'20, LICS'20 etc., but $10 is still much > closer to a symbolic sum than $100 for a strict subset of the world.). > > Unfortunately, it is my understanding that ICFP'21 is planning to reuse > the same fee structure. The details are not clear yet and possibly subject > to change, as registration hasn't opened; but this seems to be the current > plan. I wish it was possible to have a (public) discussion about this > choice in advance, and not just a month or two before the conference during > summer holidays. > > SIGPLAN has decided not to publish budget information for ICFP'20, but my > understanding is that the $100 registration scheme generated a strong > profit for the conference, to the point that, if the costs are comparable > to last year, last year profit would suffice to fund ICFP'21 entirely. Why > would we have a $100 registration fee again? > > ICFP is a flagship conference at the intersection of theoretical works and > practical functional programming, and it could attract a vibrant crowd of > people outside academia (in particular: not students), who may not have an > easy path to reimbursement -- this is especially important for the > workshops. > > (Disclaimer: I'm criticising past registration fees and prospective > registration fees, but not of course the people doing the hard work of > organizing the conference! They have all my gratitude.) > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Gabriel Scherer > wrote: > >> 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 broader attendance and a >> strong diversity of attendants, which sounds great. I don't think we can >> achieve this with for-pay online conferences. >> >> ICFP is coming up shortly with a $100 registration price tag, and I did >> not register. >> >> I'm aware that running a large virtual conference requires computing >> resources that do have a cost. For PLDI for example, the report only says >> that the cost was covered by industrial sponsors. Are numbers publicly >> available on the cost of running a virtual conference? Note that if we >> managed to run a conference on free software, I'm sure that institutions >> and volunteers could be convinced to help hosting and monitoring the >> conference services during the event. >> >
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 ] Since I complained as last year about this, I've joined on the SPLASH hybridization committee. My understanding so far is: - there are some hidden costs - overcharging some people acts as a subsidy for other people who need scholarships - planning is hard and everyone is afraid of losing money, so sometimes people are conservative in budgeting because of this - sometimes people overspend on platforms that probably aren't necessary Anyways, I'll forward this to the rest of the committee when we plan the hybrid fee structure. Hybrid is a bit different since there are still in person costs, and costs of interaction between the two, but it's still worth thinking about. Can't help with ICFP though. $100 seems like a lot even knowing what I know about virtual budgets now. On Sat, Jun 5, 2021, 12:04 PM Alejandro Díaz-Caro wrote: > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > ] > > Dear all, > > The real costs of online conferences are much less than for physical > ones, that is clear. However, it is not free of cost. The costs may > be: > * Publication costs (for example, LIPIcs charges 60 euros per paper) > * Easychair licence > * Award prize for best paper (if the conference have this kind of award) > * Conference platform costs (Clowdr, Slack, Zoom, GatherTown, etc, all > have an associated cost). > > From these four, the first three are somehow fixed with the number of > accepted papers (which is usually similar from one year to the next). > However the last one is the more difficult to predict, since platforms > such as Clowdr, GatherTown, or Easychar's VCS charge per person > (Easychair's VCS even charges per person per day). So, even if you get > funding from the organising institution or sponsors, making it free of > charge could imply a really big amount of registrations, and you may > pay for those even if they do not show up at the conference. > > The solution that we chose at FSCD this year is to make it free of > charge, unless we receive way too many requests (with "way too many" > left undefined yet), surpassing the grants we have got for the > conference. In such a case, we will ask for a very modest amount > (less than 10 dollars), making it clear that those who cannot pay, can > participate enterally free of charge. So, we are hoping to have a > fully free of charge conference (and quite probably we will), but we > have no idea how many people will register and how much the bill at > the chosen platform may grow. > > Of course there are also free platforms, but they are less reliable > and you do not have anyone to ask if things do not work as expected. > > Coming from Argentina, I agree that conferences (specially virtual) > should be free of charge or as cheap as they can, as much as they can. > This allows students to participate. I also agree that the slogan "you > will pay more attention to what you have paid" should not condition > our conferences model. Paying attention to talks is a responsibility > (or a choice) of the attendee (and of the speaker to make the talk > interesting, maybe). Putting money in the middle to encourage it is > not the best practice, in my opinion, especially if that could result > in people left behind. > > Best, > Alejandro > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 15:28, Mehmet Oguz Derin > wrote: > > > > [ The Types Forum, > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] > > > > Outsider opinion: one good heuristic for pricing anything virtual and > > making it accessible for underprivileged individuals is localized video > > game & digital subscription prices. Companies expanding these have gone > > through many stages regarding price localization (symbolic or not) > > globally. - Oguz (Mehmet Oguz Derin) > > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 4:18 PM Gabriel Scherer < > gabriel.sche...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > [ The Types Forum, > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > > > ] > > > > > > Dear list, > > > > > > Last year I played the unfortunate role of complaining about the $100 > price > > > tag on ICFP'20 registration. There were some great improvements in > further > > > events, for example POPL'21 had "discounted rate: $10" as an > unconditional > > > registration option, and PLDI'21 offers the same option. (I still wish > that > > > there events were free, as is common with other scientific conferences > like > > > FSCD'20, IJCAR'20, LICS'20 etc., but $10 is still much closer to a > symbolic > > > sum than $100 for a strict subset of the world.). > > > > > > Unfortunately, it is my understanding that ICFP'21 is planning to > reuse the > > > same fee structure. The details are not clear yet and possibly subject > to > > > change, as registration hasn't opened; but this seems to be the current > > > plan. I wish it was possible to have a (public) discussion about this > > > choice in advance, and not just a month or two
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 ] Dear all, The real costs of online conferences are much less than for physical ones, that is clear. However, it is not free of cost. The costs may be: * Publication costs (for example, LIPIcs charges 60 euros per paper) * Easychair licence * Award prize for best paper (if the conference have this kind of award) * Conference platform costs (Clowdr, Slack, Zoom, GatherTown, etc, all have an associated cost). >From these four, the first three are somehow fixed with the number of accepted papers (which is usually similar from one year to the next). However the last one is the more difficult to predict, since platforms such as Clowdr, GatherTown, or Easychar's VCS charge per person (Easychair's VCS even charges per person per day). So, even if you get funding from the organising institution or sponsors, making it free of charge could imply a really big amount of registrations, and you may pay for those even if they do not show up at the conference. The solution that we chose at FSCD this year is to make it free of charge, unless we receive way too many requests (with "way too many" left undefined yet), surpassing the grants we have got for the conference. In such a case, we will ask for a very modest amount (less than 10 dollars), making it clear that those who cannot pay, can participate enterally free of charge. So, we are hoping to have a fully free of charge conference (and quite probably we will), but we have no idea how many people will register and how much the bill at the chosen platform may grow. Of course there are also free platforms, but they are less reliable and you do not have anyone to ask if things do not work as expected. Coming from Argentina, I agree that conferences (specially virtual) should be free of charge or as cheap as they can, as much as they can. This allows students to participate. I also agree that the slogan "you will pay more attention to what you have paid" should not condition our conferences model. Paying attention to talks is a responsibility (or a choice) of the attendee (and of the speaker to make the talk interesting, maybe). Putting money in the middle to encourage it is not the best practice, in my opinion, especially if that could result in people left behind. Best, Alejandro On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 15:28, Mehmet Oguz Derin wrote: > > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] > > Outsider opinion: one good heuristic for pricing anything virtual and > making it accessible for underprivileged individuals is localized video > game & digital subscription prices. Companies expanding these have gone > through many stages regarding price localization (symbolic or not) > globally. - Oguz (Mehmet Oguz Derin) > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 4:18 PM Gabriel Scherer > wrote: > > > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > > ] > > > > Dear list, > > > > Last year I played the unfortunate role of complaining about the $100 price > > tag on ICFP'20 registration. There were some great improvements in further > > events, for example POPL'21 had "discounted rate: $10" as an unconditional > > registration option, and PLDI'21 offers the same option. (I still wish that > > there events were free, as is common with other scientific conferences like > > FSCD'20, IJCAR'20, LICS'20 etc., but $10 is still much closer to a symbolic > > sum than $100 for a strict subset of the world.). > > > > Unfortunately, it is my understanding that ICFP'21 is planning to reuse the > > same fee structure. The details are not clear yet and possibly subject to > > change, as registration hasn't opened; but this seems to be the current > > plan. I wish it was possible to have a (public) discussion about this > > choice in advance, and not just a month or two before the conference during > > summer holidays. > > > > SIGPLAN has decided not to publish budget information for ICFP'20, but my > > understanding is that the $100 registration scheme generated a strong > > profit for the conference, to the point that, if the costs are comparable > > to last year, last year profit would suffice to fund ICFP'21 entirely. Why > > would we have a $100 registration fee again? > > > > ICFP is a flagship conference at the intersection of theoretical works and > > practical functional programming, and it could attract a vibrant crowd of > > people outside academia (in particular: not students), who may not have an > > easy path to reimbursement -- this is especially important for the > > workshops. > > > > (Disclaimer: I'm criticising past registration fees and prospective > > registration fees, but not of course the people doing the hard work of > > organizing the conference! They have all my gratitude.) > > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Gabriel Scherer > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear types-list, > > > > > > Going on a tangent from Flavien's earlier post: I really think
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 ] Outsider opinion: one good heuristic for pricing anything virtual and making it accessible for underprivileged individuals is localized video game & digital subscription prices. Companies expanding these have gone through many stages regarding price localization (symbolic or not) globally. - Oguz (Mehmet Oguz Derin) On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 4:18 PM Gabriel Scherer wrote: > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > ] > > Dear list, > > Last year I played the unfortunate role of complaining about the $100 price > tag on ICFP'20 registration. There were some great improvements in further > events, for example POPL'21 had "discounted rate: $10" as an unconditional > registration option, and PLDI'21 offers the same option. (I still wish that > there events were free, as is common with other scientific conferences like > FSCD'20, IJCAR'20, LICS'20 etc., but $10 is still much closer to a symbolic > sum than $100 for a strict subset of the world.). > > Unfortunately, it is my understanding that ICFP'21 is planning to reuse the > same fee structure. The details are not clear yet and possibly subject to > change, as registration hasn't opened; but this seems to be the current > plan. I wish it was possible to have a (public) discussion about this > choice in advance, and not just a month or two before the conference during > summer holidays. > > SIGPLAN has decided not to publish budget information for ICFP'20, but my > understanding is that the $100 registration scheme generated a strong > profit for the conference, to the point that, if the costs are comparable > to last year, last year profit would suffice to fund ICFP'21 entirely. Why > would we have a $100 registration fee again? > > ICFP is a flagship conference at the intersection of theoretical works and > practical functional programming, and it could attract a vibrant crowd of > people outside academia (in particular: not students), who may not have an > easy path to reimbursement -- this is especially important for the > workshops. > > (Disclaimer: I'm criticising past registration fees and prospective > registration fees, but not of course the people doing the hard work of > organizing the conference! They have all my gratitude.) > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Gabriel Scherer > > wrote: > > > 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 broader attendance and a strong > > diversity of attendants, which sounds great. I don't think we can achieve > > this with for-pay online conferences. > > > > ICFP is coming up shortly with a $100 registration price tag, and I did > > not register. > > > > I'm aware that running a large virtual conference requires computing > > resources that do have a cost. For PLDI for example, the report only says > > that the cost was covered by industrial sponsors. Are numbers publicly > > available on the cost of running a virtual conference? Note that if we > > managed to run a conference on free software, I'm sure that institutions > > and volunteers could be convinced to help hosting and monitoring the > > conference services during the event. > > >
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 ] Dear list, Last year I played the unfortunate role of complaining about the $100 price tag on ICFP'20 registration. There were some great improvements in further events, for example POPL'21 had "discounted rate: $10" as an unconditional registration option, and PLDI'21 offers the same option. (I still wish that there events were free, as is common with other scientific conferences like FSCD'20, IJCAR'20, LICS'20 etc., but $10 is still much closer to a symbolic sum than $100 for a strict subset of the world.). Unfortunately, it is my understanding that ICFP'21 is planning to reuse the same fee structure. The details are not clear yet and possibly subject to change, as registration hasn't opened; but this seems to be the current plan. I wish it was possible to have a (public) discussion about this choice in advance, and not just a month or two before the conference during summer holidays. SIGPLAN has decided not to publish budget information for ICFP'20, but my understanding is that the $100 registration scheme generated a strong profit for the conference, to the point that, if the costs are comparable to last year, last year profit would suffice to fund ICFP'21 entirely. Why would we have a $100 registration fee again? ICFP is a flagship conference at the intersection of theoretical works and practical functional programming, and it could attract a vibrant crowd of people outside academia (in particular: not students), who may not have an easy path to reimbursement -- this is especially important for the workshops. (Disclaimer: I'm criticising past registration fees and prospective registration fees, but not of course the people doing the hard work of organizing the conference! They have all my gratitude.) On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Gabriel Scherer wrote: > 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 broader attendance and a strong > diversity of attendants, which sounds great. I don't think we can achieve > this with for-pay online conferences. > > ICFP is coming up shortly with a $100 registration price tag, and I did > not register. > > I'm aware that running a large virtual conference requires computing > resources that do have a cost. For PLDI for example, the report only says > that the cost was covered by industrial sponsors. Are numbers publicly > available on the cost of running a virtual conference? Note that if we > managed to run a conference on free software, I'm sure that institutions > and volunteers could be convinced to help hosting and monitoring the > conference services during the event. >
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 ] Dear Jens Palsberg (and types-list), In my previous email, I asked for budget summaries for past online SIGPLAN conferences (PLDI and ICFP, for example; more data is always welcome). Could SIGPLAN do it? One inspiring example of financial transparency would be Andreas Zeller's budget summary for the ISSTA'16 conference (organized by SIGSOFT): https://andreas-zeller.info/2018/02/01/where-your-conference-fees-go-to.html On the SIGPLAN blog you mentioned costs and fees as the "elephant in the room" ( https://blog.sigplan.org/2020/09/15/virtual-conferences-and-sigplan/ ). We may have different perspectives looking at different parts of the elephant; but the "blind men and an elephant" parable relies on the blind men openly sharing their information. Best On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:24 PM Gabriel Scherer wrote: > 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 < > gabriel.sche...@gmail.com> 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
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 ] Dear list, I would like to come back to a reasonable argument for non-free conference that was presented here and outside the list: there is a natural idea that even online conferences require servers, bandwidth, etc., which cost money, and that participants would pay this cost. However I would contend that (1) (despite the lack of numbers given by conference organizers) we should assume that those technical costs are fairly small, (2) the infrastructure to run online conferences could be made part of common services whose costs are mutualized, and (3) sponsors *and* our research institutions could cover those costs. (1): For conferences in our community that were forced to move online, being free is the norm, not the exception. PLDI was free, but so were LICS, FSCD, IJCAR, etc. This suggests that running free is financially possible/reasonable, and thus that the costs are not very high. (In addition to the technical cost of the hardware, electricity, network etc., there are of course human costs associated to having people maintain the service during the conference period, developing the services beforehand, and otherwise setup and run the conference. Those are probably higher than the technical costs (many aspects of it are done by academics for free, that is, mutualized by their employers). It's hard to say more without some transparency on online conference budgets. Then again, most conferences were able to run free.) (2): Suppose you go to a seminar talk at some university close by; before the talk, the organizer asks you to pay $20 for the upkeep of the seminar room, or leave -- you get a link to watch the recorded talk for free. Many of us would find the demand disturbing; in any case, while maintaining university buildings does come with large costs, we don't suggest that our colleagues coming to attend a seminar talk should pay for it. It is not obvious that attendants of an online research conference should be the ones paying the cost; it is one choice among several options, and I think the wrong choice. Another example: ICFP had 1100 registrants being nice to each other online for a week, but the #haskell IRC channel on Freenode has 1000+ users talking to each other all year long. We don't force them to pay for the Freenode servers before they can access the channel. (Or this mailing-list, whose costs I assume are generously covered by UPenn. We are surrounded by services provided by our community with mutualized costs, which make them much more vibrant, valuable, effective than if we asked their users to pay to use them.) (3): Personally I have mixed feelings about the comments on the dangers of relying too much on our sponsors. I certainly agree with the idea. But I'm surprised that it comes up now, that we have a chance to turn a fairly unpleasant conference situation into a least a big jump in accessibility of our research community (among other nice benefits), while I didn't hear very much of it in previous years, when conferences had much larger expenses that required sponsoring. ICFP rented an entire *museum* in Oxford for one evening, and then again in Berlin. Were people worrying about depending on sponsors then? Maybe they were and we just didn't have public discussions about it; but I think this concern is much less relevant in the context of online conferences whose costs are substantially lower than for a physical conference. If we had some transparent information on the budget required to run our online conferences, we could also go to our institutions to ask them to help. My employer, INRIA, has explicit procedures in place to support scientific events that require funding, I'm sure many others have (see the list of institutions supporting arxiv.org at https://arxiv.org/about/ourmembers ). The amount you typically get is lower than most offers from industrial sponsors; but many universities and research places around the world would be happy to participate in hosting and running our conferences, especially if it came with the explicit goal of making them much more widely accessible. Best 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
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 ] Hi all, on the topic of conference fees, I was just made aware of this interesting blog post: https://andreas-zeller.info/2018/02/01/where-your-conference-fees-go-to.html It's pre-Covid, and the conference is smaller than POPL/ICFP/PLDI, but this could still provide some useful data. Kind regards, Ralf On 25.08.20 22:24, Gabriel Scherer wrote: > [ 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 >>>
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 ] To add on the topic of value for money. On one hand, I agree that people who pay might participate more actively and consume more of the conference content. On the other hand, if a lot more people join a conference for free but participate in a small number of events, that does not seem to be a necessarily bad thing. Of course, if 1000 people register and nobody participates in anything, that's a disaster. But if out of those 1000, you have 100 active people at a time, it's probably no worse (or even better) than 50 fully committed participants at all times. -- Kind regards, Julia вт, 25 авг. 2020 г. в 16:27, Gabriel Scherer : > [ 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 < > gabriel.sche...@gmail.com> > 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,
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 (was: global debriefing over our virtual experience of conferences)
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] On 24/08/2020 02:14, Nicolai Kraus wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:23 PM Henning Basold > mailto:h.bas...@liacs.leidenuniv.nl>> wrote: > > I would like to add another way of covering costs that is often used > in communal places: Anyone gives whatever they can, which may be > nothing. This assumes of course some fairness and some transparency > about the costs. > > > "Pay what you want/can" is in many situations a nice model and I'm > confident that transparency/fairness wouldn't be an issue in this > community. But the problem is that conference fees are in most cases > paid from grants and not privately. Grant holders have some > responsibility to spend their budget in a way that benefits the funded > project most, and in many cases, it's essentially taxpayers' money. > Asking people to be generous with essentially public money would give > rise to all sorts of ethical problems and actual questions. > As an example, I've read in the rules of a funding agency that you can't > pay for CO2 offset if that's a voluntary option when you buy your flight > ticket. I first thought that this was an unfortunate rule, but it > actually makes sense: This public money was allocated to research. Had > the government (or whoever is responsible) thought that the money was > better spent on CO2 reduction, then they could have done that instead. > As a grant holder, one just isn't entitled to spend the money on > environmental protection (even if that might benefit the public more > than the actual research project). > I guess it's debatable, but I don't think "pay what you want" works > here. However, it does work to say "registration is €200, but you can > also choose free registration if you don't have a grant/access to travel > budget or are in a similar situation; choose at your discretion." > This is indeed an issue with our funding model and the potential ethical issues could be resolved, if there was any political will; but let us leave this for another discussion. I think the model could be refined a bit from pay all or nothing to a pay scale, with the option of no payment, that may be linked with some criteria that allow the registrant to justify the selection to their funding agency. I think, we could, as a community, come up with some standard criteria that can employed by event organisers. > > The problem with the LICS model is that it also prevents publication > for some people, if they cannot collaborate with someone who has money. > > > Agreed, but this is not in any way a new problem. I think the LICS model > was very reasonable and pragmatic given the circumstances. That doesn't > mean that we can't come up with an even better solution if we discuss > this as a community. > Certainly not, and it has become ever more visible with paid open access, where publishers asked for astronomical fees. And yes, I think we can, and need to, come up with better solutions. > > That things with a higher price are perceived to be to of higher > quality is unfortunately true. But do we have to reproduce this kind > of marketing within our scientific community? > > > I don't think "reproduce" is the right word, it's an unfortunate reality > which we can take into account. Or we can choose to ignore this reality > and hope that it works. I think it could work. > I use the word "reproduce" purposefully because this kind of reality descends merely from our society and is not an absolute truth. Many scientists do value free publications platforms very highly, and often more so than certain paid journals. The key here is the community network that surrounds such a platform. It is, therefore, not the scientific community that is an issue but whatever institutions at whose grace they are for positions, pay cheques, funding etc. Fortunately, there are changes happening, like the DORA agreement (https://sfdora.org/). Changing the mindset from "quality must be expensive" to other criteria will also contribute to changing other issue, like the peer reviewing process at competitive conferences and the issue of competition and patriarchy itself, which have been discussed previously in this thread. > > Lastly, I would like to also mention the excellent journal LMCS > (logical methods in CS), which has a very strong board and rolling > deadlines. This journal implements many of the suggestions already > successfully. > > > Thanks for this comment! There will also be a public discussion on the > publication culture in our communities (I've forwarded the invitation to > the panel debate to this mailing list earlier today). > I'm looking forward to this discussion, and I hope that we can find, as a community, solutions to pressing issues and move forward. Best, Henning > Best wishes > Nicolai > > > > > On 23 August 2020 18:35:34 CEST, Nicolai Kraus >
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 8:23 PM Henning Basold wrote: > I would like to add another way of covering costs that is often used in > communal places: Anyone gives whatever they can, which may be nothing. This > assumes of course some fairness and some transparency about the costs. > "Pay what you want/can" is in many situations a nice model and I'm confident that transparency/fairness wouldn't be an issue in this community. But the problem is that conference fees are in most cases paid from grants and not privately. Grant holders have some responsibility to spend their budget in a way that benefits the funded project most, and in many cases, it's essentially taxpayers' money. Asking people to be generous with essentially public money would give rise to all sorts of ethical problems and actual questions. As an example, I've read in the rules of a funding agency that you can't pay for CO2 offset if that's a voluntary option when you buy your flight ticket. I first thought that this was an unfortunate rule, but it actually makes sense: This public money was allocated to research. Had the government (or whoever is responsible) thought that the money was better spent on CO2 reduction, then they could have done that instead. As a grant holder, one just isn't entitled to spend the money on environmental protection (even if that might benefit the public more than the actual research project). I guess it's debatable, but I don't think "pay what you want" works here. However, it does work to say "registration is €200, but you can also choose free registration if you don't have a grant/access to travel budget or are in a similar situation; choose at your discretion." > The problem with the LICS model is that it also prevents publication for > some people, if they cannot collaborate with someone who has money. > Agreed, but this is not in any way a new problem. I think the LICS model was very reasonable and pragmatic given the circumstances. That doesn't mean that we can't come up with an even better solution if we discuss this as a community. > That things with a higher price are perceived to be to of higher quality > is unfortunately true. But do we have to reproduce this kind of marketing > within our scientific community? > I don't think "reproduce" is the right word, it's an unfortunate reality which we can take into account. Or we can choose to ignore this reality and hope that it works. I think it could work. > Lastly, I would like to also mention the excellent journal LMCS (logical > methods in CS), which has a very strong board and rolling deadlines. This > journal implements many of the suggestions already successfully. > Thanks for this comment! There will also be a public discussion on the publication culture in our communities (I've forwarded the invitation to the panel debate to this mailing list earlier today). Best wishes Nicolai > > On 23 August 2020 18:35:34 CEST, Nicolai Kraus > wrote: >> >> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] >> >> Interesting discussion, and definitely very important! >> My opinion is: >> >> (1) Registration costs should not stop anyone from attending a/an [online] >> conference. I guess that's obvious and solutions for this were implemented >> for physical conferences. >> >> (2) I accept Mike's point about free things not being valued as highly as >> paid things. But I think even a small symbolic fee could potentially be a >> hurdle for some people. The issue is that the value of $25 (or €25 or £25 >> or whatever) is very subjective. For those senior people who are important >> for the conference and who are the ones that junior members want to meet, >> $25 is likely to be negligible. For the junior participants, it might not >> be. This is just the wrong way round since the junior participants probably >> benefit most from the meeting and don't need this sort of encouragement. Of >> course, the perceived value of $25 will also greatly depend on whether >> someone has access to academic travel budget. Finally, we shouldn't forget >> that a significant part of the world population (online sources say 25%, no >> idea how accurate this is) has no access to a bank account which makes even >> a fee of $0.01 a problem. Someone with this background could not attend a >> physical conference, but they might have access to the internet. I don't >> know whether we will actually have such participants, but we (we = the >> privileged inhabitants of developed countries) would be ignorant if we >> dismissed the possibility. >> >> (3) I'm against relying on industrial sponsors. How much advertisement at >> conferences is acceptable? It's hard to draw a line, and this could get out >> of hand. Moreover, this route of funding might not be available for some >> more theory-focussed conferences, and I assume it would in general benefit >> large/prestigious conferences
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 ] I would like to add another way of covering costs that is often used in communal places: Anyone gives whatever they can, which may be nothing. This assumes of course some fairness and some transparency about the costs. The problem with the LICS model is that it also prevents publication for some people, if they cannot collaborate with someone who has money. That things with a higher price are perceived to be to of higher quality is unfortunately true. But do we have to reproduce this kind of marketing within our scientific community? Lastly, I would like to also mention the excellent journal LMCS (logical methods in CS), which has a very strong board and rolling deadlines. This journal implements many of the suggestions already successfully. On 23 August 2020 18:35:34 CEST, Nicolai Kraus wrote: >[ The Types Forum, >http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] > >Interesting discussion, and definitely very important! >My opinion is: > >(1) Registration costs should not stop anyone from attending a/an >[online] >conference. I guess that's obvious and solutions for this were >implemented >for physical conferences. > >(2) I accept Mike's point about free things not being valued as highly >as >paid things. But I think even a small symbolic fee could potentially be >a >hurdle for some people. The issue is that the value of $25 (or €25 or >£25 >or whatever) is very subjective. For those senior people who are >important >for the conference and who are the ones that junior members want to >meet, >$25 is likely to be negligible. For the junior participants, it might >not >be. This is just the wrong way round since the junior participants >probably >benefit most from the meeting and don't need this sort of >encouragement. Of >course, the perceived value of $25 will also greatly depend on whether >someone has access to academic travel budget. Finally, we shouldn't >forget >that a significant part of the world population (online sources say >25%, no >idea how accurate this is) has no access to a bank account which makes >even >a fee of $0.01 a problem. Someone with this background could not attend >a >physical conference, but they might have access to the internet. I >don't >know whether we will actually have such participants, but we (we = the >privileged inhabitants of developed countries) would be ignorant if we >dismissed the possibility. > >(3) I'm against relying on industrial sponsors. How much advertisement >at >conferences is acceptable? It's hard to draw a line, and this could get >out >of hand. Moreover, this route of funding might not be available for >some >more theory-focussed conferences, and I assume it would in general >benefit >large/prestigious conferences much more than small/new meetings. > >(4) I actually liked the model that LICS used. Participants could >choose >between free registration and paid registration, with the condition >that >each paper came with one paid registration to cover the publication >costs. >I believe we could instead simply say that people with access to travel >budget are kindly asked to opt for the paid registration. I do think >that >this would quite easily cover the costs for the conference. > >Best, >Nicolai > >On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 3:58 PM Michael Hicks wrote: > >> [ The Types Forum, >http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list >> ] >> >> 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 >>
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 ] Interesting discussion, and definitely very important! My opinion is: (1) Registration costs should not stop anyone from attending a/an [online] conference. I guess that's obvious and solutions for this were implemented for physical conferences. (2) I accept Mike's point about free things not being valued as highly as paid things. But I think even a small symbolic fee could potentially be a hurdle for some people. The issue is that the value of $25 (or €25 or £25 or whatever) is very subjective. For those senior people who are important for the conference and who are the ones that junior members want to meet, $25 is likely to be negligible. For the junior participants, it might not be. This is just the wrong way round since the junior participants probably benefit most from the meeting and don't need this sort of encouragement. Of course, the perceived value of $25 will also greatly depend on whether someone has access to academic travel budget. Finally, we shouldn't forget that a significant part of the world population (online sources say 25%, no idea how accurate this is) has no access to a bank account which makes even a fee of $0.01 a problem. Someone with this background could not attend a physical conference, but they might have access to the internet. I don't know whether we will actually have such participants, but we (we = the privileged inhabitants of developed countries) would be ignorant if we dismissed the possibility. (3) I'm against relying on industrial sponsors. How much advertisement at conferences is acceptable? It's hard to draw a line, and this could get out of hand. Moreover, this route of funding might not be available for some more theory-focussed conferences, and I assume it would in general benefit large/prestigious conferences much more than small/new meetings. (4) I actually liked the model that LICS used. Participants could choose between free registration and paid registration, with the condition that each paper came with one paid registration to cover the publication costs. I believe we could instead simply say that people with access to travel budget are kindly asked to opt for the paid registration. I do think that this would quite easily cover the costs for the conference. Best, Nicolai On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 3:58 PM Michael Hicks wrote: > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > ] > > 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
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 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 > > > 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 broader attendance and a strong > > > diversity of attendants, which sounds great. I don't think we can achieve > > > this with for-pay online conferences. > > > > > > ICFP is coming up shortly with a $100 registration price tag, and I did > not > > > register. > > > > > > I'm aware that running a large virtual conference requires computing > > > resources that do have a cost. For PLDI for example, the report only says > > > that the cost was covered by industrial sponsors. Are numbers publicly > > > available on the cost of running a virtual conference? Note that if we > > > managed to run a conference on free software, I'm sure that institutions > > > and volunteers could be convinced to help hosting and monitoring the > > > conference services during the event. > > > > >
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 ] 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 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 broader attendance and a strong > diversity of attendants, which sounds great. I don't think we can achieve > this with for-pay online conferences. > > ICFP is coming up shortly with a $100 registration price tag, and I did not > register. > > I'm aware that running a large virtual conference requires computing > resources that do have a cost. For PLDI for example, the report only says > that the cost was covered by industrial sponsors. Are numbers publicly > available on the cost of running a virtual conference? Note that if we > managed to run a conference on free software, I'm sure that institutions > and volunteers could be convinced to help hosting and monitoring the > conference services during the event. >
