Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the
past) many possible
oppor
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:47:46AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ah yes, the IETF as a FormulaOne race car.
> > I'll approach CocaCola & Visa for branding rights
> > if that would help (esp for those folks denied a 770)
>
> ah yes, the ad absurdem form of ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ah yes, the IETF as a FormulaOne race car.
I'll approach CocaCola & Visa for branding rights
if that would help (esp for those folks denied a 770)
ah yes, the ad absurdem form of argumentation.
The reality in having a host is that we already ex
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:34:00PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >Michael StJohns wrote:
> >>What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
> >>subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
> >>works out to be
> >
> >This view can
Dave Crocker wrote:
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)
This is an interesting suggestion.
Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on
hallways discussions, during the rest of
I meant to chat with John privately (sorry!) after seeing his concerns a
couple of weeks ago.
I think we are conflating several good ideas in ways that are not helpful,
so teasing them apart might help.
Specifically, distinguishing between
- presentations of proposed new work (something like
For what it's worth, this approach seemed to work reasonably well for
the SIP P2P BOF + ad-hoc (or "interim") meeting. The former was on
Tuesday, the latter on Friday afternoon.
Dave Crocker wrote:
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)
This is an interesting suggestion.
Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on hallways
discussions, during the rest of the week. However BO
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget imp
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
...
Understood, but you are fortunate to find cheap airfares from where
you happen to live.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
...
Understood
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
...
Understood, but you are fortunate to
...
I guess I was just wishing out loud when I said maybe the
meeting fee could trend down instead of up. I would be happy
if the IETF had more control over the meetings
We have complete control since December 15, 2005.
so the fees
were stable,
The fees have to cover our costs. It would be
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in
the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fe
Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget implications. That being
said
--On Sunday, 26 March, 2006 14:50 +0200 "Romascanu, Dan
\\(Dan\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that I made this proposal in the past, in a plenary
> session a while ago, when numbers in the IETF particpation
> were the issue. Discussions hold then led to the edu track,
> which is howeve
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Tim Chown wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:43:57PM -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air f
> -Original Message-
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't think that the current meetings are power-point laden
> summaries, but that would actually be useful. I often end up
> going to sessions at conferences to find out what a WG is
> intended to a
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:43:57PM -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> >Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
> >put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
>
> Brian,
>
> this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
> in t
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
1. There are more bean counters to consider, that only those in commercial
corporations, if the IETF still considers it important to be i
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in
the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
in the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee was
almost exactly the sa
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and equitable disposition of
sponsorship funds.
Eric, I am not sure why this would be required.
In so far as it's required, it's cle
> If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
> smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
> people will be able to participate.
My head hurts. If more people can participate how come
we would need *smaller* venues? And by what miracle does
lowering the fee allow us to redu
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
...
A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of standards-track protocols.
The oth
Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
>> further proposal:
>
>
> There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF
> productivity. The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then
> adding others to it will be that nothi
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and equitable disposition
of sponsorship funds.
Eric, I am not sure why this would be required.
The IETF already takes in money for
On Fri Mar 24 16:20:26 2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Henk Uijterwaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there doing
> nothing. While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful, I
> much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then
ha
Henk Uijterwaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>I think there are some good ideas here.
>>
>>I find that WG meetings are too short to get anything useful done, and
>>all the issues that would benefit of longer face-to-face discussions
>>are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are
Dave,
Certainly there are organizations that do this. Those
organizations are significantly different from the IETF. For
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and equi
> If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
> smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
> people will be able to participate.
In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel
costs.
I think there are some good ideas here.
I find that WG meetin
> There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF
> productivity.
> The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then adding others to it
> will be that nothing gets considered in detail and nothing gets done.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
not to pick on you perso
I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
further proposal:
There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF productivity.
The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then adding others to it
will be that nothing gets considered in detail and no
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> A more workable model would be to treat the current type of
> meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point laden 2
> hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value in the
> production of standards-track protocols.
Most of the meetings I
Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> my $0.02:
>
> Nothing -- not in the current meeting format.
>
> A more workable model would be to treat the current
> type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
> laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
> in the production
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more
in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe
t
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in
the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying
to get
more fro
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the
past) many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the
income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are concerned
Andy Bierman wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in
the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying
to get
more from the industry (or oth
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for ea
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the past)
many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our IAD,
Ray
OTECTED]>, Michael StJohns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Asunto: Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's
Andy,
I have been involved as local host now for two times (although I
wasn't very local this time ;-)). I agree that it doesn't make sense
to build a network each and every time completely from scratch. It is
an enormous effort to beg potential sponsors for accesspoints (or
spend a lot of money
eally difficult.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:00 -0800
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Keith Moore , "ietf@ietf.org" ,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael StJ
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant
benefits for the IETF:
45 matches
Mail list logo
