[ 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 <gabriel.sche...@gmail.com>: > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > ] > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Michael Hicks <m...@cs.umd.edu> 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 <m...@cs.umd.edu> 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 < > trin...@cs.washington.edu> > >> 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 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. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >
