On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:19, Joe Abley wrote:
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho,
maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take
it to your next SC meeting?
I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring
it up there.
We've discussed this within the SC before and the answer at that
time seemed to be that with the current structure of NANOG,
reducing to two meetings per year would leave the NANOG budget even
further in the red, to the extent that we couldn't really afford to
try it, even as an experiment.
However, perhaps the continued difficulties in making revenue match
expenses indicate the need for some more radical thinking; perhaps
if we are willing to throw out the existing structure and move to
something that looks different, the cost structures will better
accommodate a two-meeting schedule. (I'm waving my hands. I don't
have a specific rising-phoenix picture in mind.)
Um arent the costs of NANOG solely the costs of the meetings?
If so then surely each meeting is a self contained project.
That being the case, 2 better attended meetings ought to be more
'profitable' than 3 less well attended ones.
Or what am I missing here from the annual budget?
Steve
