Are the 2020/21 tickets being rolled over to 2022? If so won't this mean that there won't be many tickets for anyone else to go if we stay at 500. Would be nice I think to make it a bit bigger if possible.

I think perhaps post covid it might be something to consider, but 2022 we are still v much in the world of risk mitigation.

I'm on the fence, but agree with others who said that COVID would suggest caution this year.

We're always going to want to go > 500 ultimately, right? Because otherwise it will not be very inclusive. If we are confident of selling over 500 tickets and enough to make the additional costs worthwhile, I say go for it. And you don't have to decide on this now, right? Try and sell 500 but be ready to sell more. If you easily hit 500 and effectively have a waiting list (for people to register they want to buy but didn't get one) then open up the next couple of hundred. What's the alternative? That we wait for demand to WAY outstrip supply, have lots of frustrated people who've been before and then next year increase sales?

Jeff's point of 2 x 500 events back to back has long been equivalent-suggested for Burning Man and has a whole host of reasons to not do that which should be documented. Just trying to clear the site of people at end of first event is practically impossible. Trying to strike a whole load of stuff and set up new stuff at same time on same spaces is practically impossible. It sounds great but there are a lot of impracticalities to this.

Yes in principle - it's currently difficult to radically include the 501st person who wants to go. In practice, this might not be the year to do it.

There will be a bigger demand for tickets this year

As it has to be a big jump it is maybe risking more of a culture shift/loss to do it on a year when there's been two years off.

I feel adding a few hundred more participants would change what I think of as a familial feel of the event

500 memberships usually sell quickly to regulars and their friends, excluding slower-to-purchase 1st timers, creating the potential for a cliquey event.

Could 200 additional memberships be offered to a wait list and released as soon as sufficient are sold to meet the additional licencing cost ?

I think expanding membership off the back of a global pandemic is a really bad idea. Let us settle back into the event before we make any major changes or make things more difficult for ourselves.

We haven’t don’t enough presales to hit 700

Responding specifically to the 2022 event. In favour of growing in future but given the 2 year absence and a fairly late start in gearing up for this year maybe it's best to stick with what we know to start off with.

It'll be first year back after a long break, with the complexities of covid, etc. Leave it at 500 for this year.

I don’t know how much the added costs might be but I’d be prepared to expand to 1000 & see if that can work. If I knew the costs that would have helped me further to decide on this one !

I think for this years Nest, its best to just leave it alone. For future events, expanding it will make it more inclusive. I think it will benefit from a few more people and I don't think it will be that noticable for 1000 or less.

Do we have an option to choose later to extend the capacity if 500 sell out quickly and further demand seems high? Is there a risk of not covering costs if we sell, say 550 tickets?

Limiting the size of Burner events means more Burner events are likely to be created. Don't like that particular event? Well - go on create your own. The more Burner events there are then the happier I'll be, even if I don't get to go to all of them (I've never attended London Decom but I've run Decor for a couple of years and participated in Setup and Strike many times).

I always wanted to go but it was always sold out before I could commit.

More people, more camps are needed to make this site feel alive, at least with the current layout. Other more intimate burns already exist and are wonderful (hat tip Microburn), but there is space for a larger burn in UK and this is the obvious one to grow.

The UK has a growing burner community and it would be good if the main regional burn could also grow to accommodate this. People can go to small burns like microburn if that is the feel they want rather than stopping people from being able to attend one at all if they can only do a UK burn.

Neat has been around its current size for many years now and while the intimate size has been a delightful home like place I believe we need to allow expansion to increase the variety of art, camps and people. There are several smaller intimate burner offerings still available to all. Having watched other burns grow in size I feel they have benefitted ( despite teething problems) from the expansion in numbers and also the networks people from within those communities…

This year is going to be tricky after a break and growing is going to make it harder. Increasing is likely to change the feel of the event. Maybe next year, especially with an emphasis on all members volunteering

If it's practical and works for the people organising (doesn't cause big problems), and people want the tickets, yes. If it's not practical I would be happy with 500 too.

It's exciting to think what Nest could do if it grew and also, sometimes the site seems a little underpopulated. I have faith that we can grow while maintaining and even enhancing the 'feel' and culture of the event.

Whilst I understand the desire for Nest to grow, I think it is unwise to do so for the first event since 2019, especially as COVID is still very present an issue in the world.

I think in future years expanding could be great for the burn but as the first Nest in a few years it makes more sense to my mind to keep it manageable whilst everyone gets back into the swing of things.

My understanding is that in order for it to be cost effective the event would need to grow significantly to cover the cost of licenses and security needs. Again, this feels like a less than cautious step forward during a very uncertain time for many of us

First year back after a break, I think we should stick to what we know for the mo.

Seems more fair to me

Many people apply for a lottery, the lottery requires little commitment. Though I hate the scramble it does indicate commitment.

Provided those with 2020 tickets get first “dibs”

I don't mind how it is done, but if by lottery, the registration period should be very short (24 h or so) and payments made within a couple of days after the draw to avoid it dragging out. Anyone who really want to attend would be able to work with those timelines.

Lottery might be fairer but lots more work behind the scenes. Releasing them in several waves should still give most an opportunity to get hold of a membership. I’d say whoever is doing the backend should decide 🙃

I support a lottery only if there are no pre-allocations for camps & organisers. I accept this can mean chaos, some camps not coming, others forming from the remnants or membership churn, newbies & others having to step up & disappointment for some. I'm ok with this, everyone takes their chances. Not keen on a lottery only for freecampers, those without a camp or who don't know everyone already. If not a lottery preferred option is no pre-allocations & first come first served with various waves.

Yes, but only if the process is not too involved and doesn't drag on as others have said

Both have pros and cons so i m not aure which system is rhe beat in that case, wave of ticker seems more easy to handle for org and future attendees.

I really appreciate the "abstain" choice. I do not have enough data to have an opinion, though I will say, part of a community having cohesiveness is found in those who are corporately the glue and the fire to the next year. It is something to eventually be passed to another, but there has to be that core. I think those "core" are all the organizers and the camps. I trust you brilliant people to determine how best to juggle the balance of foundational types and fresh-blood types 😊

Instead of randomness, I'd prefer to reserve a substantial amount of tickets to people who attended in 2019 and/or had a ticket for 2020.

I think a lottery makes more sense than just rewarding whoever happens to have the fastest internet connection

Obviously if the first question is answered to favour growth, then this question becomes less important. Maybe worth noting that Nest, like Burning Man, is probably only close to capacity on the end weekend. This means that those who only come for the weekend (of course, work may only permit some people to attend at the weekend) are unlikely to be as fully participatory as those who have been there most of the week. It would be great if we could find a way to encourage full week participation.

There are disadvantages of both approaches.

If you are reserving tickets for core people and well-established camps, who have spent money on infrastructure, assuming that they will keep returning (i.e. like BM), I support that. Although you do then have an application process to manage but still relatively light compared to BM. The lottery of 2012 BM was a disaster that pissed off thousands. For a start "random" doesn't exist as BM proved one year even though the "waiting room" concept was supposed to be that.

Strong disagree, it's hard to get excited about a burn when you discover that half of your art crew/camp/friendship group weren't selected for tickets. That was BM 2012 and it was deeply upsetting for many :( Let's find better ways to address the problem: more waves? more tickets? an offline alternative for folks with slow internet?

iI'm really not sure about this. On one hand, it is more 'fair'. On the other hand, Nest is such a small event that a reasonable level of experienced Burners are needed in order for it not to be too chaotic. I need to think a bit more on this.

I agree in principle though the allocation for say a 'very low income' ticket will be difficult.

I wouldn't split low income into 2 tiers, deciding what is low &what very low income seems very subjective, imprecise &open to abuse, just have one low income allocation. Also maybe have a what you want to pay option alongside those higher contribution tiers so those who can contribute whatever they're willing to. Ok with proposed standard ticket prices but abstaining as I have a ticket for 2020 so unaffected by change.

I agree with the increases. Like Allan, less sure on the categories but perhaps 2 low income prices are working fine already, and maybe it’s not so easy so have self-selected higher prices due to limits of chosen platform

Seems reasonable. Given the amount of inflation going on recently I wouldn't mind if the ticket prices went up slightly higher even

STILL a bargain (are far as festivals and events go!) I really appreciate that you offer low-income tickets as well.

The prices look fair. I'm not sure if I see the point in a distinction between "low" and "very low" income tickets.

I don't get why you need 2 lower income ticket prices and haven't seen that before. Just feels like more admin and don't understand how you would fairly measure people in 2 different "lower" ways.

This is honestly a bargain at all tiers to be honest! As someone who had generally required a LI or VLI ticket, and has overseen those applications for other burns - I'd say there's very little abuse of them. Perhaps, rather than split into two LI tiers, we could consider a tier for those traditionally poorly represented - disabled people, ethnicities other than white, single parents etc. This could in theory help with increasing diversity and inclusion.