Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
> This is something I have discussed with several people > and every one seems to agree. > > The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously > high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with > no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for > registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions. > This is effectively the membership fee for IETF. Sorry > - not everyone can plan ten days in advance to get > $125 reduction in fee. Just try to run a small > consulting business or work for a 20 person start up - > you would know what I mean. > ... bonney - setting aside, for now, the unstated assumption of your message that meetings are where the real work gets done, perhaps a starting point would be to start by asking what the money gets spent on. maybe 575 is high, maybe it is low, maybe it is just right. looking at a balance sheet would provide a basis for a reasoned discussion as to whether the fees are reasonable, outrageous, or a bargain... /mtr
RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
> Bonney Kooper wrote: > The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously > high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with > no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for > registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions. I paid out of my own pocket, and I do not think that the fee is outrageous. Accounting the amount of cookies and yogurts I eat, and the number of coffee cups I drink, and the price to rent the rooms and the nice video projectors, it does not seem extravagant to me. Do you think the the Hilton is a charity? > This is effectively the membership fee for IETF. I do not agree. Meetings are optional and membership is free. > Sorry - not everyone can plan ten days in advance to > get $125 reduction in fee. if you can't plan it 10 days in advance, the IETF fee is a non-issue because you will spend $3,000 for last minute airline tickets and hotel. > Marshall Rose wrote: > setting aside, for now, the unstated assumption of your message that > meetings are where the real work gets done, Right on the money. Let's be real: meetings are a good excuse to have a few beers with your mailing list buddies. Michel.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
At 02:34 PM 3/16/02 -0800, Bonney Kooper wrote: >The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously >high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with >no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for >registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions. >This is effectively the membership fee for IETF. Sorry >- not everyone can plan ten days in advance to get >$125 reduction in fee. Just try to run a small >consulting business or work for a 20 person start up - >you would know what I mean. Well, as one who is not attending this meeting, in part for reasons of funding, I think your case here may be a little overstated. While I shall miss the opportunity to share a beer and swap war stories with some friends and colleagues, I don't feel excluded from effective participation in IETF business. While face to face meetings can certainly be very helpful, I have also found that it's quite possible to advance an idea and build working relationships with people I've not met. I have some sympathy: I think being able to attend meetings does enhance one's opportunities to both understand issues and influence outcomes (with emphasis on the former), but the IETF meeting fee is really a small part of the overall cost involved in doing this -- my typical total costs for past IETF meetings have been around $2500, with advance planning. (And that has often been while working for a small startup.) #g --- Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Marshall Rose wrote: >>This is something I have discussed with several people >>and every one seems to agree. >> >>The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously >>high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with >>no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for >>registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions. >>This is effectively the membership fee for IETF. Sorry >>- not everyone can plan ten days in advance to get >>$125 reduction in fee. Just try to run a small >>consulting business or work for a 20 person start up - >>you would know what I mean. >>... >> > > bonney - setting aside, for now, the unstated > assumption of your message that meetings are where > the real work gets done, perhaps a starting point > would be to start by asking what the money gets spent > on. maybe 575 is high, maybe it is low, maybe it is just right. > > looking at a balance sheet would provide a basis for > a reasoned discussion as to whether the fees are > reasonable, outrageous, or a bargain... How far off could it be? Presumably Bonney has trouble participating in conferences such as Sigcomm, Infocom, Globecom, etc. All these meetings cost. Where does that money go? Into the coffers? Champagne? Consider the costs of: - ballrooms rental (it's not first-come, free) - setup /teardown (the chairs and tables are extra) - projectors/mics (and their setup/teardown, and running) - coffee/cookies (did you think they were donated?) - registration desks cost money the hotel charges to put up the tables the hotel charges for the phone line for credit card verification the credit card company takes a cut the people are paid, not volunteers Oh yeah, all those nicely taped-down power strips cost money. A lot more than you think - typically $50-$100 PER. Sure, each of these items could be bought at the local store cheaper, but don't forget setup/teardown, and in many cases, liability if the hotel doesn't do it with a licensed electrician or union staff. Sure, we have sponsors, which is why this event doesn't cost $1000. It's why we have busses (free), over to a reserved museum (did you think that was free?). A tee-shirt and bag of 'stuff' (sponsor-paid, not out of that registration fee). A room full of PCs and ethernets, and wireless all over the place. And a network connection (the hotel, telco, and ISP all charge for that). Covering JUST the above costs around $100-$150 a day, given my experience on the executive committees of various conferences and workshops. This is all a fraction of the real cost of doing business. Bonney - if you find this "outrageous", please find a location that meets IETF guidelines (hotel size, room capacities, nearby international airports, etc.), prepare a budget, and offer an alternative. A cursory comparison with other conferences should convince you that the IETF, for a 4-5 day event, is nowhere near outrageous. Joe
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
I believe that the pie chart of IETF financing was shown at the London IETF (which I missed), but the facts are simple enough: the meetings are subsidised by industrial sponsors, and the IETF secretariat is funded out of the resulting surplus from the meeting fees. In addition, the Internet Society funds the RFC Editor out of money provided by its organizational (i.e. mainly industrial) members. If the meeting fee was substantially reduced, this whole financial support system would collapse overnight. Brian Marshall Rose wrote: > > > This is something I have discussed with several people > > and every one seems to agree. > > > > The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously > > high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with > > no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for > > registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions. > > This is effectively the membership fee for IETF. Sorry > > - not everyone can plan ten days in advance to get > > $125 reduction in fee. Just try to run a small > > consulting business or work for a 20 person start up - > > you would know what I mean. > > ... > > bonney - setting aside, for now, the unstated assumption of your message that >meetings are where the real work gets done, perhaps a starting point would be to >start by asking what the money gets spent on. maybe 575 is high, maybe it is low, >maybe it is just right. > > looking at a balance sheet would provide a basis for a reasoned discussion as to >whether the fees are reasonable, outrageous, or a bargain... > > /mtr
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
I think every one missed the point due to my not being a bit more precise, and using a very strong word. I drafted that mail on my very small screen mail device which made clear thinking a bit harder :-(. I agree that the word the "öutrageous" was too strong a word and clearly doesn't apply to the registration fee alone as it is only a small portion of overall cost to attend IETF meetings. But when you take the cost of attending three IETF meetings (about $2500 * 3= $7500 per annum), the cost is quite high for an individual. So any reduction or rebate will be welcome for those who are not funded from big corporate accounts. So now let us focus on the core issues of how to raise more money for IETF meetings so individual fees don't have to be raised in the future: 1. I agree that IETF needs money to function, and operate as a free and effective society. I fully support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered corporate membership program like all other standards forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for organization with 200 plus employees, $10 K for 100 to 200 employees and $5000 for every body else (or whatver numbers you choose), but unaffliated individuals may still remain free or pay only a nominal fee. Let the big corporations who benefit most from the IETF derived standards bear their proprtionate share of the cost for running the show. I hope somebody can do a rough estimate how much money can be raised per year for this. 2. Yes, the registration fee is definitely cheap for a five day conference when compared to IETF/ACM conferences. But IETF/ACM conferences are attended mostly by academcians who don't make big money based on the outcome of those conferences. But corporations who send tens of employees to IETF meetings do make tons of money based on IETF standards, or acceptance of their version of stnadrds (case in point BGP/MPLS VPNs a VPN implementation proposal. Who benefitted most from this proposal being accepted by IETF? ). As far as I know, only a few people from small organizations attend all five days. It is only the big corporations who send hundreds of people in all sessions who are there all five days, and attend every session. Let the registration fee be designed for them to pay for their proportionate share. Either set a realistic cost of $1000 per person and use decreasing discount for each additional member or keep the fee same at $575 but use the incremantal addional for every additional member. Both schemes will generate additional revenue, and will ensure the coprporations that benefit most will pay their proportional cost for IETF meetings. I am for IETF to continue to be financial secure but still remain as an open society. I am only asking people to think how to best combine these two goals. Just think without being emotive. ==Bonney --- Marshall Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe - since you replied to my note rather than > bonney's, i am obliged > to reply. > > Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion > on the fees. What i > am saying is that neither of you have any data. > Let's look at some > actual numbers, and we can then have a reasoned > discussion... > > /mtr > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Marshall Rose wrote: > Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged > to reply. > > Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i > am saying is that neither of you have any data. I had data - from other conferences. Granted, I'm asserting there isn't a reason the IETFs costs are different. My point is that a comparison with other conferences is sufficient, rather than a full disclosure of itemized costs from the IETF's. (thus the reply to Marshall's followup :-) Joe
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think every one missed the point due to my not being > a bit more precise, and using a very strong word. I understood your point fine - what I had problems understanding were the responses. For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you know how much the coffee costs?' raised the question 'Do you think the coffee is critical to have at those meetings?'. I do appreciate how much it costs to put on a meeting or conference, especially when it comes to getting reasonable bandwidth into the building for a short period of time. However, I remember occasions when reading a draft and thinking to myself 'this is a *really* bad idea to implement' and realising that the only way I was going to get heard was to get to the next meetings. Then I realised that (at the time) I was a student, and couldn't afford to even pay the door fee, never mind the flights. These days I'm a bit more flush with the old moolah, and the primary problem I have in attending is time not money. However, the costs are MASSIVELY prohibitive for individuals. In a time when OSes and user experience are becoming increasingly controlled by the individual's involvement in open source software, I find it strange that the IETF is effectively actively discouraging individual participation, and concerns itself mostly with staying good chums with the larger corporate entities. Membership of the IETF is set to the correct price - free - and nobody expects conferences to also be run for free. However, the tiering system Bonney is talking about is likely to have two positive effects for the IETF process: 1. More money will be raised - Cisco et al are going to send their people regardless, and the point where they do not see it as being economically viable to do so is going to be quite high 2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new router line-up, or input on a broad range of protocols from the people who maintain the network protocol stacks in Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/etc. with the emphasis being on open, secure, reliable systems? OK, I'm biased, I'm with the OSS guys, but surely somebody can see my point. It's not about trying to push away the corporates, it's about trying to create a level playing field. I, for one, completely agree with adopting a tiering system. -- Paul Robinson
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Bonney - 1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 penalty for forcing us to staff the registration desk with people authorized to handle credit card transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on whether the penalty is enough to pay for the overhead. The average fee paid in 2001 was USD 431 - most people preregister. 2) Of the USD 2.7 million taken in on meeting fees last year, USD 1.38 million shows up as direct meeting costs - the largest single item is "food and beverages" - breakfast and cookies. 3) The rest of the meeting fee covers the cost of keeping us with a secretariat. We have people working full time on running the IETF - a lot of those people behind the desk are working for you full time, all year. Internet-drafts don't publish themselves. This is a recurring subject - I guess I just have to continue making the "money" presentation. BTW - the economy presentation is available as part of the London minutes. Look at the numbers for yourself. Harald
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered > corporate membership program like all other standards > forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums > and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for The difference is that the IETF is not an organization-membership-based entity but rather an individual-member-based organization. Your proposal would alter the basis of membership for the IETF and would encourage the very behaviour you claim is happening now and wish to prevent: the excessive influence of large corporations on Internet Standards. Once you turn IETF into a corporate-membership-based organization (whether explicitly by membership dues or implicitly by an official sliding scale paid by the corporation), the bias of attention and service shifts from the individual to the corporation. I decided to sit in on the Newcomers Orientation Sunday where one could learn: 1. that we don't use voting to determine standards to avoid the effect of anyone packing working group meetings with voters, 2. how all the different documents fit together as part of the process, how they are produced and reviewed primarily outside of meetings, and 3. the lengthy and tortuous path a proposal must take to become a standard, of which the working group meetings are only a small part. The system has been rigged to avoid excessive influence from any one organization. Maybe it's not always perfect, but you can be assured that trying to fix or avoid it by tinkering with registration fees will be futile no matter what structure you set. As others have pointed out, the registration fee is a rather small minority of total direct and indirect attendance costs, so protesting it on economic grounds doesn't seem to be a very strong issue. If your real issue is with perceived large corporate influence, that should be addressed by organizational and operational changes, not fee structures. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Paul Robinson wrote: ... > 1. More money will be raised - Cisco et al are going to send their people > regardless, and the point where they do not see it as being economically > viable to do so is going to be quite high That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies manage expenses. Brian
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
>I suggest let IETF institute a tiered >corporate membership program like all other standards >forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums >and MPLS forums etc.) Yes--and they get what they pay for: a consortium to rubber-stamp their proposals. /=\ |John Stracke|Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. | |=| |Peace, justice, morality, culture, family, sport, and the| |extinction of all other life forms! | \=/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
>large companies are >just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole >idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies >manage expenses. In fact, large corporations can be *more* sensitive to meeting costs, because they have better accounting processes in place. In London, I heard that IBM had a travel freeze; only a very few people had been able to get approval to come. My employer at the time, eCal, had sent me as a matter of course, just because it was what we always did. One month later, eCal announced it was going out of business. /\ |John Stracke|Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc.| |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.| || |Organ transplants are best left to the professionals. | \/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies > manage expenses. I can assure you it isn't. Have you noticed that nobody from any company has piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!". I can assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when it comes to standards tracking. Those companies who are whining about economic downturn are unlikely to send anybody even at $500/head. Those that value the IETF meetings will see a raised price as being an investment regardless of price. In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to - please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) There seems to be a circular argument occuring here to justify why companies should be able to send hundreds of employees along at the cost of active participation from individuals who may very well have valid points - I'm sure the IETF are interested in hearing from the OSS community as well, aren't they? Put it this way - let's suppose an organisation wishes to send more than one rep to a meeting. They pay $250 more per head - if there are five reps then thats an extra $1250. You then have a choice of either letting two individuals in for free, or giving a discount of $250 to 5 individuals, or whatever. The company doesn't mind, you probably increase attendance, and you're STILL not loosing money. Which bit of "you're not going to see cash disappear if you do this" are people having problems understanding? Actually, like I suggested in my previous mail, I suspect that certain individuals involved with the IETF are quite happy with hob-nobbing with the big multi-nationals and don't give a damn what lone consulants and developers who actually have to deploy the technologies think, and I'm beginning to strongly suspect that if all individual participants crawled under a rock and never showed any further interest in the IETF, many people would break open the champagne. Shame really. Ho-hum. -- Paul Robinson
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the multicast feed. In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better, i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc. And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access, the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out of the hotel. -Kevin
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However, I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then they'd expect their word to carry more weight. IMHO the only way to make sure that individuals continue to be able to contribute usefully to IETF is to treat all participants of IETF the same - regardless of who pays for the attendance. And as much as the meeting costs annoy me, I haven't thought of a better way to fund IETF. But I'd be curious to know whether holding meetings in other venues (say university campuses during break periods) might allow us to lower meeting fees. Keith p.s. I also think that periodic, timely disclosure of IETF finances via the web site would be entirely appropriate.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 15:59 + Paul Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due > to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word > 'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation > it applies to - please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really > needed. :-) Yes, they are - serious brain food is necessary. Breakfast on-site makes it possible for folks to meet and talk before the meeting starts; afternoon coffee and cookies help keep you awake because you were meeting late into the night the night before, and also provide another venue where you can meet and talk about things. For those on a limited budget, it's also just about possible to survive on "pre-paid" food and dinner, cutting out the costs associated with lunch. (Thanks again to those folks that bought me lunches in SLC.) > Actually, like I suggested in my previous mail, I suspect that certain > individuals involved with the IETF are quite happy with hob-nobbing with > the big multi-nationals and don't give a damn what lone consulants and > developers who actually have to deploy the technologies think, I'll admit that it does sometimes feel that way and that as an individual it becomes very hard to be involved (I'd echo some of Graham Klyne's comments here). > and I'm > beginning to strongly suspect that if all individual participants crawled > under a rock and never showed any further interest in the IETF, many > people would break open the champagne. Shame really. Ho-hum. I don't quite get that feeling, but I think it's something that needs to be considered.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
g'day, Paul Robinson wrote: > > On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance > > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are > > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole > > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies > > manage expenses. > > I can assure you it isn't. Have you noticed that nobody from any company has > piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!". I can > assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 > for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when > it comes to standards tracking. Well, since you asked, "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea". I've run my own company, I've been an independent consultant and I was an Engineering Director at Cisco for a couple of years. At Cisco I managed a team of about 80 people, and I got to decide how many of them would go to the IETF each meeting. Yup, at Cisco we didn't ask John Chambers how many people to send to the IETF, each Business Unit made these decisions independently based upon the needs of their markets. We managed our own budgets and schedules, and had to hit both revenue and spending milestones along the way. The IETF was just one small part of what we did and that's true for all the other Business Units at Cisco who independently decide who to send to each meeting. In a world of market downturns the difference between $500 a person and $5,000 is not a "drop in the proverbial ocean". Adding an extra $15,000 annual cost, times the several people I sent each trip would definitely have led to me looking for cutbacks. Yes, even large companies need to watch their spending. In at least one case where I allowed folks to go to a set of meetings, I can assure you I would *not* have authorized it if the costs had increased by an order of magnitude. I fully endorse keeping my people in the industry loop, I endorse open standards and I endorse career development for my staff but given what the markets have done over the past two years, you shouldn't assume people like me would just roll over and pay whatever was charged. Not on *this* reality plane. And even if we did, I agree with the previous posters who question the effect this would have on the organization. The more dependent you are on a smaller group of decision-makers who hold the purse strings, the more beholden to them you become. Yes, $450 is a lot of money to small companies, and when I was an independent consultant on more than one occasion I elected not to go to a meeting because of the cost, but having sat on both sides of the fence, asking one group to subsidize another doesn't seem to ever be a healthy long term strategy for any group. So, that leaves cost containment. Does the IETF spend too much on cookies? I suspect not, but as Harald has pointed out the figures are out there. Go have a look and let us know where you think the cuts should should be made. Blindly assuming that "large corporations" will willingly pay an order of magnitude more for the privilege of subsidizing individual contributors doesn't seem viable to me... - peterd -- --- Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gydig Software "This, my friend, is a pint." "It comes in pints?!? I'm getting one!!" - Lord of the Rings --
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Paul Robinson wrote: > > On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole > > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies > > manage expenses. > > I can assure you it isn't. Have you noticed that nobody from any company has > piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!". I can > assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 > for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when > it comes to standards tracking. I work for a large company who is accounting with a much tighter belt than we were a few years ago, and I can assure you that jacking up corporate prices would directly affect our attendance, just like it would many other big companies. Despite what you think, most big corporations don't have bags of money in the budget to throw around at will. However, that's not why I object to your idea. I object to any "tax the hell out of the rich for our benefit" plan in any system. Your underlying message is that a) corporations "owe" these organizations, so they should be willing to foot the bill for them, and b) you really would like it just fine if people from these corporations didn't show their faces at the meetings at all. Would you prefer it if corporations felt unwanted and started working either independently or in groups to create standards outside of the IETF, and completely ignored the opinions of everyone in it? Why not require income reports from all attendees, and start charging people proportionally to their yearly income? Would that be fair? The wealthier attendees should be willing to foot more of the bill because they can afford it? One of the nice things about the IETF is that it's theoretically based on the contributions of individuals, and designed so that individuals have the power to stop suggestions that are being "railroaded" through the process. If you feel that corporations are having undue or unfair influence over the workings of the IETF, then a discussion should be started about changing the procedures and protocols regulating the operating of the IETF to correct the balance. If you feel that you are owed free meeting attendence by a person or corporation who simply has a larger net worth than you, then we disagree on basic principles. -- Tobin Coziahr 650-786-7118 (x87118) Solaris Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged to reply. Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i am saying is that neither of you have any data. Let's look at some actual numbers, and we can then have a reasoned discussion... /mtr
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 -0800 "Kevin C. Almeroth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the > multicast feed. > > In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way > will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better, > i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc. > > And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access, > the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this > creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out > of the hotel. Point taken, but as an individual contributor I don't think I'm going to have much luck talking to SBC/PacBell... and I don't think individual contributors on the end of 56k dialup are going to be able to get much either.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered > corporate membership program like all other standards > forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums > and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for The difference is that the IETF is not an organization-membership-based entity but rather an individual-member-based organization. Your proposal would alter the basis of membership for the IETF and would encourage the very behaviour you claim is happening now and wish to prevent: the excessive influence of large corporations on Internet Standards. Once you turn IETF into a corporate-membership-based organization (whether explicitly by membership dues or implicitly by an official sliding scale paid by the corporation), the bias of attention and service shifts from the individual to the corporation. I decided to sit in on the Newcomers Orientation today where one could learn: 1. that we don't use voting to determine standards to avoid the effect of anyone packing working group meetings with voters, 2. how all the different documents fit together as part of the process, how they are produced and reviewed primarily outside of meetings, and 3. the lengthy and tortuous path a proposal must take to become a standard, of which the working group meetings are only a small part. The system has been rigged to avoid excessive influence from any one organization. Maybe it's not always perfect, but you can be assured that trying to fix or avoid it by tinkering with registration fees will be futile. The registration fee is a small minority of total attendance cost. If your real issue is with corporate influence, they should be addressed by organizational and operational changes, not fee structures. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered > corporate membership program like all other standards > forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums > and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year for The difference is that the IETF is not an organization-membership-based entity but rather an individual-member-based organization. Your proposal would alter the basis of membership for the IETF and would encourage the very behaviour you claim is happening now and wish to prevent: the excessive influence of large corporations on Internet Standards. Once you turn IETF into a corporate-membership-based organization (whether explicitly by membership dues or implicitly by an official sliding scale paid by the corporation), the bias of attention and service shifts from the individual to the corporation. I decided to sit in on the Newcomers Orientation today where one could learn: 1. that we don't use voting to determine standards to avoid the effect of anyone packing working group meetings with voters, 2. how all the different documents fit together as part of the process, how they are produced and reviewed primarily outside of meetings, and 3. the lengthy and tortuous path a proposal must take to become a standard, of which the working group meetings are only a small part. The system has been rigged to avoid excessive influence from any one organization. Maybe it's not always perfect, but you can be assured that trying to fix or avoid it by tinkering with registration fees will be futile. The registration fee is a small minority of total direct and indirect attendance cost. If your real issue is with corporate influence, they should be addressed by organizational and operational changes, not fee structures. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners -- Dennis Fazio The Ephemeral Network
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 AM -0800 "Kevin C. Almeroth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access, > the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this > creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out > of the hotel. Well, you do have about 200Mbits/sec connected to the Hilton at the moment which should support a substantial number of mostly audio content feeds, but that's not likely to be available every meeting depending on sponsor. Besides, I believe you just need to send out a few streams to distribution reflectors elsewhere. -- Dennis Fazio HeatSeeker Technology Partners
RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
The Usenix annual convention is about the same cost. I suspect the O'Reilly Open Source Convention is more. Corporations already pay for the ietf meetings. Check out the registration list. Corporations are also members and contributors to ISOC. Let's assume we took the meeting prices down for specific classes of individuals by 50%. Are we saying that the $250/meeting is going to overcome the barrier of attending? Let's get real. I suspect flying 1/3 of the way around the world is a far bigger barrier for most people. In many ways, the IETF should actually focus on making presence at a meeting less important. Things like inexpensive telephone bridge access to every session with help from the meeting chairs to get words in edgewise would help. There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps we should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for travel, expenses, etc. regards, peterf N.B. We are talking about IBM, HP, SUN (the new entrant to OSS ?) and others when you refer to the OSS guys, aren't we? -Original Message- From: Paul Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:45 AM To: Bonney Kooper Cc: Marshall Rose; Joe Touch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think every one missed the point due to my not being > a bit more precise, and using a very strong word. I understood your point fine - what I had problems understanding were the responses. For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you know how much the coffee costs?' raised the question 'Do you think the coffee is critical to have at those meetings?'. I do appreciate how much it costs to put on a meeting or conference, especially when it comes to getting reasonable bandwidth into the building for a short period of time. However, I remember occasions when reading a draft and thinking to myself 'this is a *really* bad idea to implement' and realising that the only way I was going to get heard was to get to the next meetings. Then I realised that (at the time) I was a student, and couldn't afford to even pay the door fee, never mind the flights. These days I'm a bit more flush with the old moolah, and the primary problem I have in attending is time not money. However, the costs are MASSIVELY prohibitive for individuals. In a time when OSes and user experience are becoming increasingly controlled by the individual's involvement in open source software, I find it strange that the IETF is effectively actively discouraging individual participation, and concerns itself mostly with staying good chums with the larger corporate entities. Membership of the IETF is set to the correct price - free - and nobody expects conferences to also be run for free. However, the tiering system Bonney is talking about is likely to have two positive effects for the IETF process: 1. More money will be raised - Cisco et al are going to send their people regardless, and the point where they do not see it as being economically viable to do so is going to be quite high 2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new router line-up, or input on a broad range of protocols from the people who maintain the network protocol stacks in Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/etc. with the emphasis being on open, secure, reliable systems? OK, I'm biased, I'm with the OSS guys, but surely somebody can see my point. It's not about trying to push away the corporates, it's about trying to create a level playing field. I, for one, completely agree with adopting a tiering system. -- Paul Robinson
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
At 11:23 AM 3/18/02, Keith Moore wrote: >I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way >to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However, >I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then >they'd expect their word to carry more weight. IMHO the only way to >make sure that individuals continue to be able to contribute usefully >to IETF is to treat all participants of IETF the same - regardless of >who pays for the attendance. I'm another who pays his own way. I don't make it to all meetings, partially because of expense, partially because of time/availability constraints. I have no issue with the meeting expense part of things. I spend much more on airfare, hotel and meals than on the meeting fee. It's those other expenses that'll keep me from Yokohama. I am active on mailing lists, contributing to or commenting on drafts, and so forth. It's entirely possible to be an active participant in the IETF without attending meetings. - Daniel Senie[EMAIL PROTECTED] Amaranth Networks Inc.http://www.amaranth.com
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Paul Robinson wrote: > > On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance > > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are > > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole > > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies > > manage expenses. > > I can assure you it isn't. Have you noticed that nobody from any company has > piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!". Have another look at my email address. > I can > assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 > for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when > it comes to standards tracking. I can assure you that you are as wrong as it's possible to be about this. Brian
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:44:50AM +, Paul Robinson wrote: > > 2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the > protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing > through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new > router line-up, or input on a broad range of protocols from the people who > maintain the network protocol stacks in Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/etc. > with the emphasis being on open, secure, reliable systems? > 1) Individual participation can always take place on mailing lists. I will note that a lot of the development work for Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, GNOME, etc., happens on mailing lists, and in fact the Open Source people are probably *more* used to collaborating electronically than many people in the commercial/propietary industry space. And as always, while the face to face contact is important, on the IETF, the primary place place where things get done is the mailing list --- not in the face-to-face meetings. 2) Given that the overall cost of a meeting is at around $2000 (and this doesn't even include the cost of the time of the person who is attending the meeting), once you include airfare, hotel, and meals, and the registration fee, would you really increase individual participation by decreasing the registration fee from $425 to say $150? I very much doubt it. Someone who can't afford $2000, probably also won't be able to afford $1500. If you include the salary+overhead cost of the engineer attending the meeting, the cost of the registration really disappears into the noise. > OK, I'm biased, I'm with the OSS guys, but surely somebody can see my point. > It's not about trying to push away the corporates, it's about trying to > create a level playing field. I, for one, completely agree with adopting a > tiering system. A level playing field is one where everyone pays the same amount of money for the value of services received. Also, I'll note that given that individuals who don't attend the meetings, but who still participate electronically, are basically getting the IETF Secretariat services "for free", companies who send lots of people are in effect already subsidizing the smaller companies who don't send as many people. - Ted P.S. I am a Linux kernel developer, and very much in the Open Source Software development space, and you'll notice that I'm not pushing for an organizational subsidy
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Keith> And as much as the meeting costs annoy me, I haven't thought of a better
Keith> way to fund IETF. But I'd be curious to know whether holding meetings
Keith> in other venues (say university campuses during break periods) might
Keith> allow us to lower meeting fees.
It certainly would eliminate some of the terminal room costs.
The problem that I understand it from trying to organize other conferences
at Carleton University in Ottawa is that there are really only two breaks at
most universities: reading-week/march break, and summer. At schools with
extensive co-op programs many have a normal 4 month summer term
(e.g. Waterloo University), so no time is available, period.
For many academic conferences, the availability of residences during the
summer or between sessions is what makes them possible.
(Phil Karn would be pleased to stay in residence at Carleton despite the
weather as one needn't never go outside for an entire term...)
Residence is usually not available during march break. The alternative is
nearby hotels, if any, which may involve moving a lot of people distances
that are not walkable. As anyone who has had to stay in third hotel has
learnt, even a short distance reduces the amount of chance meetings in the
hall that make the meetings so effective.
I think that all of these issues are resolvable for quite a number of
campuses, for a summer IETF.
The idea of coming back to the same places regularly appeals to me on many
fronts. Knowing what to expect is valuable to me.
I was involved in the terminal room setup this time. The fiber from the
basement to the third floor (where the hotel has a telco closet) was left
from last year, but we had to have fiber pulled to the second floor. The
cabling on the tables themselves is the same cables as last year. That
represents quite a savings in man-power and logistics.
I note that we still do not know anything about fall or 2003 meetings.
I would also like to know if anyone has any estimates about hotel and food
costs in Yokohama. I know that Japan is seldom cheap, but I do not know if I
should plan on $150US/night, $300US/night or simply bring the deed to my
house.
As another independant consultant, I am actually far more price sensitive
on the hotel and food costs than I am on anything. (And the ritzier the
hotel, the higher the cost of the food, and the availability of a peanut
butter sandwidth goes way down).
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBPJZGVoqHRg3pndX9AQFytwP+L4FIl2l147qjzGftyF/DPqLR2mFtViqJ
nww+Qo58u5weHSmfHce007ffzg55gqDcSQwn8dTfkqVKjcZc9Z54ErJInIYYJRsB
scaWIxDTcFCwS9sHBn4T6R/H8siExc4kAjn/G990tLFM8X0N4QRu7YF277Gbwf3W
8FurmAuvYnc=
=bRY+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--- Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bonney - > > 1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 > penalty for forcing us to > staff the registration desk with people authorized > to handle credit card > transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on > whether the penalty is > enough to pay for the overhead. Harald, Thanks for taking time to respond. For a fee of $425, a late fee of $150 doesn't seem reasonable to me at all in the percentage term. All they do at the counter is charge to the credit card and print the tag. No more than five minutes to process. I can still do most this stuff on line a day before - if you would let me do it with no or small late fee. Only argument may be that it lets you plan in advance for sponsor hand bags - but I for one don't care if i get those conference bags and tee shirts if the counter runs out them. Big deal. > > The average fee paid in 2001 was USD 431 - most > people preregister. > > 2) Of the USD 2.7 million taken in on meeting fees > last year, USD 1.38 > million shows up as direct meeting costs - the > largest single item is "food > and beverages" - breakfast and cookies. I think that can be reduced substantially. As most people stay in Hotels any way, and some of them include breakfast as part of the room stay. It is pretty much a duplication, and only beneficiaries are near by Hotels!. Funds can definitely be better used to fund secretariat activities or building reserve funds for the IETF. All we need is to offer plain english tea and coffee during breaks, and simple crackers and of course, people are free to order any thing from coffee shop if they are into eating sandwitches or gourmet cakes and pastries etc. But then it is me - others may feel the need of more sugar calories after each sessions. I don't eat cookies so couldn't care. > 3) The rest of the meeting fee covers the cost of > keeping us with a > secretariat. We have people working full time on > running the IETF - a lot > of those people behind the desk are working for you > full time, all year. > Internet-drafts don't publish themselves. I think it will be a good idea to have a fresh look at how to fund IETF activities in a way that increase the individual/ Graduate student/ University researchers participation. I think corporations can bear more of the cost after all they do make billions in profit thanks to IETF standards, and can afford mega million packages for CEOs. If there is a need to sponsor individual sessions so be it as long as that only gets them (sponsors) a mention, and perhaps a display board (this sesion sponsored byxyz.) and doesn't affect independance of technical discussions. > > This is a recurring subject - I guess I just have to > continue making the > "money" presentation. > > BTW - the economy presentation is available as part > of the London minutes. > Look at the numbers for yourself. I am not disputing the tight funding situation at IETF. All I am saying is that let us freshly examine how to fund IETF activities in a way that doesn't make it harder for researchers, individual contributors and single consultants to attend IETF meetings. regards, == Bonney __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Paul Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... Have you noticed that nobody from any company has > piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad > idea!". I wouldn't have used just those words, perhaps, but just so there is no misunderstanding: Oooh, no, that would be a bad idea! I have done quite a bit of standards work both in the IETF and in some of the kinds of membership-based consortia that you cite, and the IETF funding and operational models are much better, specifically because they avoid people spending time on non-technical "we paid xxx to be here and you paid xxx/5, so you don't count" and similar nonsense. That does happen, and in the context of memberships costing 10s of thousands of dollars or more there is every reason why it _should_ happen. > I can > assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 > for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when > it comes to standards tracking. Those companies who are whining about > economic downturn are unlikely to send anybody even at $500/head. Those that > value the IETF meetings will see a raised price as being an investment > regardless of price. I work for a medium sized multi-national, and got here because my tiny startup was absorbed into it, and your assertion is just plain wrong. While it may seem to be true that in the grand scheme of things there is little difference between $500 and $5000, it all comes down to some individual manager having to pay for it out of some specific budget (as it should). > In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to > the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is > overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to - > please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) Actually, I think the cookies and coffee are probably a major net productivity gain for the group, because they make it possible for people to congregate locally between meetings rather than scatter to find their fixes. I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent developers to find funding. So good that I'm going to make a point to watch for cases in which it might be in my companies interest to sponsor such people, and suggest that others might do likewise (this may already be happening - I don't know). -- Scott LawrenceGlobespanVirata Embedded UPnP & Web Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.emweb.com/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
> > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance > > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are > > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole > > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies > > manage expenses. > I can assure you it isn't. Have you noticed that nobody from any company has > piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!". I can > assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 > for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when > it comes to standards tracking. Those companies who are whining about > economic downturn are unlikely to send anybody even at $500/head. Those that > value the IETF meetings will see a raised price as being an investment > regardless of price. Well, all I can say is that my corner of the world at Sun Microsystems corresponds with Brian's assessement of the situation, not yours. I started working with the IETF back in 1990. At the time I worked for a college, and funding issues were handled quite simply: I paid for everything personally. Eventually I started working for Innosoft, a small company. Innosoft paid my expenses for attending the IETF and those of several other people as well. AFAIK everyone who wanted to attend an IETF meeting was able to. I started working for Sun about two years ago. Sun manages this a lot more carefully than Innosoft ever did. And as a result not all the people I work with at Sun who have wanted to attend the IETF have been able to. If the fees were raised it would be even harder to get funding. I'm not saying this is good or bad. It is just how it is. In the case of Sun at least, the way expenses are managed isn't compatible with tiered pricing, just as Brian said. Ned
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--- Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A level playing field is one where everyone pays the > same amount of > money for the value of services received. Also, > I'll note that given > that individuals who don't attend the meetings, but > who still > participate electronically, are basically getting > the IETF Secretariat > services "for free", companies who send lots of > people are in effect > already subsidizing the smaller companies who don't > send as many > people. my friend, I think you missed the key arguments. If the cost of running A PARTICULAR IETF meeting is concerned then it is true (this is what one would call the element view of the problem). But if you take the system view and consider the big picture, and try to see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF standards, then like many you would think that companies that send lots of delegates are being subsidized by single and independant developers in more than one way. First, the corporations benefit by getting their standards approved by show of mite and then shipping those equipment/standards for billions dollar of profit. Without IETF's approval they won't be able to ship those equipment as "open systems". But the problem is many times these so called systems are only opened once these corporations are ready to ship!. People can tell you who shipped which standards when - bgp2547 vpns were ready to ship on a particular vendor's machines before the draft was even written and scheme described to public (ietf). without ietf's approval for the design as rfc, they had no chance to sell this solution. Also, as big companies send more people, they increase the cost of the conference for the organisers, and hence the cost for every one, so they should bear more cost. If you are going to have a meeting of just 25 people costs, i believe but could be wrong, don't increase linearly if you organise a meeting for 500 people. You now need many more halls and cost baloons up. So they are not exactly paying there fair share, are they really? == bonney __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Paul Robinson wrote: [..] > For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you know how much > the coffee costs?' raised the question 'Do you think the coffee is critical > to have at those meetings?'. At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning and afternoon stimulants failed to help you stay awake during your various WGs, BOFs, and hallway discussions? [..] > However, I remember occasions when reading a > draft and thinking to myself 'this is a *really* bad idea to implement' and > realising that the only way I was going to get heard was to get to the next > meetings. You might want to look into WG mailing lists for this purpose. cheers, gja (who prefers tea over coffee anyway)
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Paul Robinson wrote: [..] > please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) Enabling cookies improves information exchange between participants. cheers, gja
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
I'm intrigued that the reggo figures say attendance is shrinking. Amazed but also delighted in a way, because there is no question smaller is more functional. Obviously sad for those who can't attend, I'm not saying this is unequivocally wonderful or anything. The thing is, it doesn't *feel* smaller. So is this a significant trend, and is it proving to continue? -George -- George Michaelson | APNIC Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 Phone: +61 7 3858 3100 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 | http://www.apnic.net
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 12:25 -0800 Bonney Kooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Bonney - >> >> 1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 >> penalty for forcing us to >> staff the registration desk with people authorized >> to handle credit card >> transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on >> whether the penalty is >> enough to pay for the overhead. > > For a fee of $425, a late fee of $150 doesn't seem > reasonable to me at all in the percentage term. All > they do at the counter is charge to the credit card > and print the tag. No more than five minutes to > process. And those people cost money. And so does the credit card machine. And so do the desks they're working behind. And irrespective of I suspect the hotels might even charge some premium for "extra heads" being added to the catering requirements. > I can still do most this stuff on line a day > before - if you would let me do it with no or small > late fee. But by then the badges have already been pre-printed and shipped to the hotel I believe. So you'd still have to pay the premium for someone to handle your badge and registration in a different way, most likely printing the badge when you arrive. > Only argument may be that it lets you plan in advance > for sponsor hand bags - but I for one don't care if i > get those conference bags and tee shirts if the > counter runs out them. Big deal. That's irrelevant since the sponsor bags/t-shirts (if any) are not included in the registration cost (so far as I understood it). >> The average fee paid in 2001 was USD 431 - most >> people preregister. >> >> 2) Of the USD 2.7 million taken in on meeting fees >> last year, USD 1.38 >> million shows up as direct meeting costs - the >> largest single item is "food >> and beverages" - breakfast and cookies. > > I think that can be reduced substantially. As most > people stay in Hotels any way, and some of them > include breakfast as part of the room stay. It is > pretty much a duplication, and only beneficiaries are > near by Hotels!. And many hotels *don't* include a free breakfast, especially not for conference block bookings (in my experience of attending conference hotels). Irrespective of that, I'd rather not have to get up even earlier in order to stand in line in an overcroweded (read: full beyond capacity if this were to happen) hotel restaurant before the 9am start. Informal nibbles and coffee (or soda) makes it a *lot* easier to hold ad-hoc meetings before the sessions start. > Funds can definitely be better used to fund > secretariat activities or building reserve funds for > the IETF. All we need is to offer plain english tea > and coffee during breaks, And water, and soda of a variety of types... > and simple crackers and of > course, people are free to order any thing from coffee > shop if they are into eating sandwitches or gourmet > cakes and pastries etc. But then it is me - others may > feel the need of more sugar calories after each > sessions. I don't eat cookies so couldn't care. And a couple of thousand of people searching for "empty" calories (or the better sort in fruit or ice cream) in an area around the event hotel during a half hour break ... is not going to work. >> 3) The rest of the meeting fee covers the cost of >> keeping us with a >> secretariat. We have people working full time on >> running the IETF - a lot >> of those people behind the desk are working for you >> full time, all year. >> Internet-drafts don't publish themselves. > > I think it will be a good idea to have a fresh look at > how to fund IETF activities in a way that increase the > individual/ Graduate student/ University researchers > participation. I think corporations can bear more of > the cost after all they do make billions in profit > thanks to IETF standards, and can afford mega million > packages for CEOs. If there is a need to sponsor > individual sessions so be it as long as that only gets > them (sponsors) a mention, and perhaps a display board > (this sesion sponsored byxyz.) and doesn't affect > independance of technical discussions. Just Say No.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
g'day, Scott Lawrence wrote: ... > > In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to > > the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is > > overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to - > > please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) > > Actually, I think the cookies and coffee are probably a major net > productivity gain for the group, because they make it possible for > people to congregate locally between meetings rather than scatter to > find their fixes. It's a very common perk here in Silicon Valley to provide employees with free coffee/tea/soft drinks. The cost of this can run to several dollars/day per person. For a company as large as Cisco (40,000 at its peak, in the 2x,000 range now) this works out to millions of dollars/year. Now, you might think that cutting out the free drinks would be a slam-dunk no-brainer for the accountants but people still give free drinks to their staff. Now, this is *not* just because people would be unhappy. Unhappy was when we had to lay off thousands of employees a year ago. People are less insistent on their perks this year, so why do companies still think it worth paying for "free" drinks? Let's consider another set of numbers. The averaged loaded cost of an engineer in Silicon Valley is something on the order of $200,000/year (that's salary, plus all costs to put that employee to work, pay for the health insurance, laptop, travel, etc). The senior folks who go to the the IETF probably average out to a bit more than that. *That* number works out to something very close to $120/hour, assuming 210 work days/year, and an 8 hour day (yeah, I know, you work more than 8 hours a day - humour me here). Now, if each time I give you a 35 cent soda, I can get another 15 minutes of work out of you, then the net profit on that soda to me as an employer is something like $30-0.35 = $29.65. In effect, my employees are paying *me* for the soft drinks. Thanks, folks. And *that's* why it pays to issue cookies and drinks at the IETF. Each time you *don't* have to go stand in line at the coffee shop to spend $2 for a soft drink, or gosh forbid $6.00 for a latte with extra foam and a cookie, the collective wisdom of the IETF benefits from another 15 minutes of your time and you metaphorically pocket $30. Do that three times a day for a week and you've paid for your IETF meeting fee... When I was attending the IETF meetings, some of the best work was definitely done while scarfing down a coffee and pastry (Hi Steve!). Do the math on how many collective hours of work this works out to in a year: O(1000 people/meeting) x O(3 break/day) O(15 minute/break) x 5 days x 3 meetings/year Yup, that's over 10,000 hours/year of work done in exchange for those cookies. Now, there's some "bio-overhead" in that number, but the benefits are real enough that I'd vote to keep paying for the cookies... - peterd --- Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gydig Software "This, my friend, is a pint." "It comes in pints?!? I'm getting one!!" - Lord of the Rings --
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian E Carpenter writes: >> I can >> assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 >> for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when >> it comes to standards tracking. > >I can assure you that you are as wrong as it's possible to be about this. > Ditto. I was initially denied travel funding to attend Salt Lake City IETF, despite my initial arguments that I was an IAB member, the IAB liason to the IESG, an IRSG member, and the chair or co-chair of two working groups, one of significant importance to my employer since it involves the interaction of the Internet and the phone network. The issue isn't the the fraction of the total expense budget of the giant multinational that IETF attendance represents. Giant multinationals have a hierarchical structure; the issue in very many cases is the budget of the individual organization, where travel might be noticeable. That was certainly the case for me -- and a month after that IETF, management announced that they were laying off a very significant portion of the organization. I wonder how many people's jobs were saved by the organization-wide travel freeze. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
This is a very old problem in many situations. I remember well dealing with it in the LA ACM back in the 1960's... People were objecting to paying $5.00 for dinner;-)... One answer is to set up some kind of "Hardship Case" program to which hardship cases may submit an application for a special discounted registration fee, citing their hardship situation. I should be funded out of the registration fees paid by all the non-hardhsip attendees. I expect that very few people will admit that they are genuine hardship, so the distributed burden on those who pay the full fee will be negligible. And, yes, it would help if the hardship cases were somehow identified by badge insignia. One proper exception might should be for students, for whom I believe that some kind of "educational support" would be very good for both the students and the IETF. Well worth the subsidy cost. One of the reasons this sort of thing works, is that any attendee wanting to obtain the hardship fee has to think hard about her/his justification for claiming hardship. A limit can be set at some nominally small percentage of the registrations being allowed for hardship cases. Enjoy;-)... I will not be applying;-)...\Stef At 2:44 PM -0500 3/18/02, Theodore Tso wrote: >On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:44:50AM +, Paul Robinson wrote: > > > > 2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the > > protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing > > through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new > > router line-up, or input on a broad range of protocols from the people who > > maintain the network protocol stacks in Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/etc. > > with the emphasis being on open, secure, reliable systems? > > > >1) Individual participation can always take place on mailing lists. I >will note that a lot of the development work for Linux, FreeBSD, >NetBSD, GNOME, etc., happens on mailing lists, and in fact the Open >Source people are probably *more* used to collaborating electronically >than many people in the commercial/propietary industry space. And as >always, while the face to face contact is important, on the IETF, the >primary place place where things get done is the mailing list --- not >in the face-to-face meetings. > >2) Given that the overall cost of a meeting is at around $2000 (and >this doesn't even include the cost of the time of the person who is >attending the meeting), once you include airfare, hotel, and meals, >and the registration fee, would you really increase individual >participation by decreasing the registration fee from $425 to say >$150? I very much doubt it. Someone who can't afford $2000, probably >also won't be able to afford $1500. If you include the >salary+overhead cost of the engineer attending the meeting, the cost >of the registration really disappears into the noise. > > > OK, I'm biased, I'm with the OSS guys, but surely somebody can >see my point. > > It's not about trying to push away the corporates, it's about trying to > > create a level playing field. I, for one, completely agree with adopting a > > tiering system. > >A level playing field is one where everyone pays the same amount of >money for the value of services received. Also, I'll note that given >that individuals who don't attend the meetings, but who still >participate electronically, are basically getting the IETF Secretariat >services "for free", companies who send lots of people are in effect >already subsidizing the smaller companies who don't send as many >people. > > - Ted > >P.S. I am a Linux kernel developer, and very much in the Open Source >Software development space, and you'll notice that I'm not pushing for >an organizational subsidy
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On 18. mars 2002 13:56 -0600 Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As another independant consultant, I am actually far more price > sensitive on the hotel and food costs than I am on anything. (And the > ritzier the hotel, the higher the cost of the food, and the availability > of a peanut butter sandwidth goes way down). FYI.We have checked that there is a shopping mall with a food court next to the meeting venue for the Yokohama IETF. You can even get Japanized McDonalds. We try to make good Harald
RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
> There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps we > should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for > travel, expenses, etc. How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is short. ;) Is it possible to "be there" electronically? -- Thor Harald Johansen
RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
A starting point: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/multicast_53.html As important is participation in the mailing lists, docs, etc. Cheers, peterf -Original Message- From: Thor Harald Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:45 PM To: Peter Ford Cc: Paul Robinson; Bonney Kooper; Marshall Rose; Joe Touch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees > There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps we > should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for > travel, expenses, etc. How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is short. ;) Is it possible to "be there" electronically? -- Thor Harald Johansen
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Bonney "Robin Hood" Kooper wrote: [..] > But if you take the > system view and consider the big picture, and try to > see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a > result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF > standards, [..] If you are not seeing any personal or business benefit from attending the IETF, why are you thinking of going? (Have you ever gone to an IETF meeting?) gja
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
At 11:44 AM 3/18/02 +, Paul Robinson wrote: >However, I remember occasions when reading a >draft and thinking to myself 'this is a *really* bad idea to implement' and >realising that the only way I was going to get heard was to get to the next >meetings. ... I must challenge this assertion -- if you have a cogent argument why something is a bad idea, and present it to the working group and/or as a last-call comment, I believe it really does get heard. Of course, not everyone will agree on what constitutes a cogent argument, because different folks have different goals -- that's when it becomes important to _listen_ to the responses as well as present your argument. I don't deny that it helps to attend meetings -- if mainly because it helps one to get a broader understanding of the issues -- but unlike just about any other technical design committee I've experience of it's really not essential to participate in person. Indeed, in my experience, the IETF meetings are not really the place to get your argument *heard*. I think they are most useful for testing new ideas. If there's an important aspect of this cost-of-meetings debate, I think it's to keep us all mindful that meeting attendance should not be seen as necessary to get some work advanced or improved. >In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to >the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is >overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to - >please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) I've wondered about this, and I think that they're probably fairly economical for the delegates: at IETF meetings, I typically skip hotel breakfasts and use the breakfast buffet for my morning's fuel. Then there are coffees that would otherwise be purchased - these things soon mount up at hotel prices. And more importantly, it means that folks are not forced to choose between useful discussion and wandering off to find food and drink. Finally, there's a matter of logistics -- IETF meetings typically overrun the available lunch facilities (lunches not being provided in the package); I assert that laying out a buffet is a more efficient way of feeding and watering the numbers involved. #g --- Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:44:57 +0100, Thor Harald Johansen said: > How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is > short. ;) Is it possible to "be there" electronically? I've never been spotted at an IETF meeting. In fact, I think I've only ever been spotted in person by about 10 people who ever *have* attended IETF meetings. OK.. Maybe 20. ;) And those who *have* met me also know that I *will* travel several time zones if something is happening that my presence is useful - I've just never made it to an IETF because there's never been a draft that needed my in-person discussion... Before you ask "how", ask "why". -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07898/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
>>Well, you do have about 200Mbits/sec connected to the Hilton at the moment >>which should support a substantial number of mostly audio content feeds, >>but that's not likely to be available every meeting depending on sponsor. >>Besides, I believe you just need to send out a few streams to distribution >>reflectors elsewhere. Excellent idea! And since this part of the IETF is driven by volunteers, I'm thinking you're willing to volunteer? ...organize the reflectors, work with the terminal room to make sure there is bandwidth (what should we do for other meetings when the bandwidth isn't available), run the local reflector (software and hardware), etc. And if you'd like to do a different encoding then make sure to bring your own encoder machine. We can easily make both an audio and video feed from either (or both) rooms available to you. Real and NCast have done this in the past, but we tend not to advertise these additional services as widely since they are not services that will consistently be offered at each meeting... and if the service isn't offered every time then it becomes hard for attendees to plan on NOT attending because they aren't sure whether they can really listen. -Kevin
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
At the risk of prolonging this thread: On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 21:43, Einar Stefferud wrote: > One answer is to set up some kind of "Hardship Case" program to which > hardship cases may submit an application for a special discounted > registration fee, citing their hardship situation. > > I should be funded out of the registration fees paid by all the > non-hardhsip attendees. > > I expect that very few people will admit that they are genuine > hardship, so the distributed burden on those who pay the full fee > will be negligible. Seems reasonable, but I'd argue that the air fare and hotel costs dwarf the meeting fees. > > And, yes, it would help if the hardship cases were somehow identified > by badge insignia. No it would not. You don't want to be marking people in this way if their input is to be treated as equal to everyone else's. -- Frank
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Mar 18, grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning > and afternoon stimulants failed to help you stay awake during your various > WGs, BOFs, and hallway discussions? Stimulants? Who needs stimulants when you've got unfinished code from that project you meant to finish 3 months ago? It's all you need, I can assure you... next you'll be suggesting that sleep is a good idea. Pah! > You might want to look into WG mailing lists for this purpose. Did so. Ran into the same problems Bernstein is having now with IDNA. H... :-) -- Paul Robinson
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
> > To believe this, you must believe that large vendors > are unable to ship a > product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp. Stephen, It does increase the acceptance of a solution specially when customers are concerned about inter-operatability issues. It is more so in carrier networks. > You must also believe > that this IETF rubber stamp is only available to > large vendors, and only > large vendors will benefit from it. I didn't say that. I said RELATIVE benefit derived (actual in terms of increased sales, or perceived in terms of prestige and goodwill). We don't have fix tax per person for all rich and poor even though everyone uses the same federal/state services?. The question is what are the alternatives way to better fund IETF activities and control (controllable portion of) rising costs? > Given that the IETF does not recognize organizations > at all, it is hard to > agree with this model. The process is specifically > designed to prevent this > from happening, and I think the current IDNA > argument shows that it's > difficult to railroad a WG with a bad idea. Agreed - i didn't say that it is easy to push bad idea through any working group. But it is easier to build a momentum around for an idea if you have many people coming from the same organisation simply because you know them, and you work closely with them (though many people will say the design of IPv6, and a lot of MPLS work isn't a shining example of good work, but it is not because of bad ideas, but rather too many good ideas :-)) ==bonney __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
Thus spake "Bonney Kooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If the cost of running A PARTICULAR IETF meeting is > concerned then it is true (this is what one would call > the element view of the problem). But if you take the > system view and consider the big picture, and try to > see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a > result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF > standards, then like many you would think that > companies that send lots of delegates are being > subsidized by single and independant developers in > more than one way. > First, the corporations benefit by > getting their standards approved by show of mite and > then shipping those equipment/standards for billions > dollar of profit. Without IETF's approval they won't > be able to ship those equipment as "open systems". But > the problem is many times these so called systems are > only opened once these corporations are ready to > ship!. To believe this, you must believe that large vendors are unable to ship a product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp. You must also believe that this IETF rubber stamp is only available to large vendors, and only large vendors will benefit from it. Given that the IETF does not recognize organizations at all, it is hard to agree with this model. The process is specifically designed to prevent this from happening, and I think the current IDNA argument shows that it's difficult to railroad a WG with a bad idea. > Also, as big companies send more people, they increase > the cost of the conference for the organisers, and > hence the cost for every one, so they should bear more > cost. If you are going to have a meeting of just 25 > people costs, i believe but could be wrong, don't > increase linearly if you organise a meeting for 500 > people. You now need many more halls and cost baloons > up. So they are not exactly paying there fair share, > are they really? You have a tacit assumption here that when a large vendor, which makes hundreds of products across dozens of market sectors, happens to send 20 people, those people have less valuable input than if 20 small vendors each sent one person to the same meetings. Please prove this is true. S
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
>And many hotels *don't* include a free breakfast, In fact, out of all the business trips I've ever made, I can remember only one hotel (in London) that included breakfast (not counting "continental breakfast", which is generally inedible). Getting breakfast in a hotel restaurant usually takes more time than it's worth, too. When I'm jet-lagged, and trying to get to the first meeting of the morning, that time can make a big difference. /==\ |John Stracke|Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. | |==| |Please do not adjust your mind--reality is malfunctioning.| \==/
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
>If there is a need to sponsor >individual sessions so be it as long as that [...] >doesn't affect >independance of technical discussions. Howls Of Derisive Laughter, Bruce. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. It might start out subtly, but it would eventually degenerate into a pay-for-all like, say, Congress. /==\ |John Stracke|Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. | |==| |"But she calls her ship _Mercy of the Goddess_!" "Kali." "Oh."| \==/
Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
On Mar 18, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent > developers to find funding. So good that I'm going to make a point to > watch for cases in which it might be in my companies interest to > sponsor such people, and suggest that others might do likewise (this > may already be happening - I don't know). Perhaps this is adressing the same problem but in a more constructive manner. The vast majority of web servers out there are going to be Linux or FreeBSD running Apache. It might be nice if the guys looking after the stacks in Linux, FreeBSD and the HTTP guys at Apache actually got to come along without forking out a fortune. I'm not sure what they do now, but I know that I've seen dicussions on freebsd lists and others where people are discussing how to implement certain features into some somewhere, where the conclusion is whoever wrote the RFC should be shot. Obviously, the point of implementation is the wrong time to start complaining. I also think that this open-arms attitude to the OSS community might mean a few more protocols get implemented outside of an individual company's product range. That has to be a good thing. Well, it is if the protocol or standard has any value outside of the vanity of a company's R&D department. The main problem right now though may be one of perception - I've been to BSD conferences that have cost not dissimilar amounts to IETF confs, but with more of a social slant. I'm sure that some of the implementors in OSS world would pull together the money *somehow* to get to IETF if there was a perceived value. At the moment, the perception seems to be that Cisco and co. will rubber-stamp things within IETF and the OSS will "just cope with it" once the RFC appears. I suppose what I'm saying is, perhaps it's time for the IETF to question how it should operate in a world where OSS is dominant in the server market place, and where it is increasingly common for stacks to be implemented by people who are not paid to do so. It's rather strange really - both Mac OS X and recent-ish versions of Windows apper to have FreeBSD code in their stacks. I'll put money on it that few people at FreeBSD have managed to make it to an IETF meeting. -- Paul Robinson
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
> I'm not sure what they do now, but I > know that I've seen dicussions on freebsd lists and others where people are > discussing how to implement certain features into some somewhere, where the > conclusion is whoever wrote the RFC should be shot. > The main problem right now though may be one of perception - I've been to > BSD conferences that have cost not dissimilar amounts to IETF confs, but > with more of a social slant. I'm sure that some of the implementors in OSS > world would pull together the money *somehow* to get to IETF if there was a > perceived value. But in the scenarios you allude to, pretty much *all* of the work to address those problems should have been handled on the WG mailing list. Also, standards do not get approved at IETF meetings (referring to your "rubber stamped by Cisco" comments), so there's no need to show up to "vote" for your favourite protocol. Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in, and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session. Some people claim you have to attend to keep up with what the other groups are doing. I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic: it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server, making it easier to browse a wider cross section of lists without completely obliterating your inbox (and before you say it, MUA filtering doesn't properly address the problem). Don't forget, there are active IETF participants who have never felt it necessary to attend a meeting. And frankly, if people would stop showing up when they don't have to the cost of the meetings (and the registration fees) would be a lot lower. (Thus repeating the cycle) --lyndon
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
> Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an > intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in, > and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session. essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways, restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together to work out mutual understandings and compromises which then emerge as proposals to WGs. sometimes this can be done in email or over the phone, but it's much easier in person.
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
> essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways, > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ... Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things accomplished
in the hallways of *THIS* IETF will be a BOF at the *next* one, and a working
group at the one after that. Also, a quick sanity check of an idea that takes
10 minutes in the hallway ("Hey Fred - does this sound reasonable, or am I
smoking crack again?") could take anywhere from 45 minutes to forever in the
context of a working group session (remember, it usually takes less time to
bring ONE person up to speed than to bring a whole room up to speed on your
new idea...)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
msg07910/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
> > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways, > > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ... > > > > Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process. > > I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things > accomplished in the hallways of *THIS* IETF will be a BOF at the > *next* one, and a working group at the one after that. You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of squashing, not originating, WG items.
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways, > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ... > > Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process. you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said the ideas are reviewed by WGs. nor did I say that the small groups of people included specific people. the process is still open. any group of people can get together to brainstorm. but good ideas rarely come from large groups - they come from individuals or small groups. small groups are better at coming up with proposals; large groups are better at doing review and coming up with usage scenarios. Ketih
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
> You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your > naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of > squashing, not originating, WG items. since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems entirely appropriate.
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic: > it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure > don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a > read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server, making it easier to browse a wider > cross section of lists without completely obliterating your inbox I've been doing this (via IMAP) for years and it works well for me. Now if the IETF (and the rest of the world) would make list archives available via anonymous IMAP, then we all wouldn't have to do this ourselves. And if IMAP clients would properly support anonymous IMAP, then it might be generally useful. (Sorry, this seems to be All Rants All The Time Week on the IETF list, so I had to add one of mine. 8^) - RL "Bob"
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
Ah, the WG items have low survivability. And what does THAT tell you? Matt Crawford wrote: > > > > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways, > > > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ... > > > > > > Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process. > > > > I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things > > accomplished in the hallways of *THIS* IETF will be a BOF at the > > *next* one, and a working group at the one after that. > > You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your > naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of > squashing, not originating, WG items. -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
Re: Sponsorship (was Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees)
*> *> But in the scenarios you allude to, pretty much *all* of the work to *> address those problems should have been handled on the WG mailing *> list. Also, standards do not get approved at IETF meetings (referring *> to your "rubber stamped by Cisco" comments), so there's no need to *> show up to "vote" for your favourite protocol. *> *> Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an *> intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in, *> and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session. It would be nice if this were true. However, something we have learned from nearly 30 years of using email for designing network protocols: email is a great way to carry on complex technical discussions and to solve technical problems, but it is generally ineffective for making group decisions. That is why face-face meetings are still needed. Bob Braden
