On 10/9/07, Sean Figgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joe Abley wrote: > > > No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG > > stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich > > insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can > > probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer.
Just out of curiosity, what is the breakdown of those numbers? I mean, > how many FTE is NANOG using from Merit, and how many servers in Merit > managing for NANOG? Are any of the servers shared with other Merit > projects, or are they self contained? I don't really care to know the > financial information, as that is between the SC and Merit. > Check out Betty's slides at: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/community.html The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg. A close second biggest cost looks like the staff cost - shown as "Salary" and I would add in the "G&A". This is for 2-3 FTEs spread across a bunch of folks who collectively handle the load of NANOG activities. It looks like Merit allocates 1/3 of this expense to each of the 3 meetings. If there were 2 meetings, the staffing costs would be allocated across 2 points. The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG. Having fewer meetings decreases the revenue while keeping the 2-3 FTEs constant. Probably leads to a greater net loss. My conclusion is that more revenue is needed, more sponsorships, more beer-n-gear revenue, more NANOG commemorative mugs and boxer shorts. And find a way to knock down the hotel expenses somehow. BTW - I didn't see the ARIN $50K contributions in the budget on this page. Maybe Cisco should kick in $50K in kind and we don't need to have this conversation ;-)
