On 12/1/06, Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:46PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> impossible to compare ripe and nanog. ripe meetings are rir meetings
> and subsidized by ripe/ncc, which has a monopoly on ip address space.
> in north america, nanog is separate f
Forget what I said about Vegas. I was looking at it from a cost
perspective.
One item of note, the cost to attend the conference is the same no
matter where the venue. I am sure some venues are less expensive than
others. Maybe pricing should be based on the location.
There have been enough diff
On 4-Dec-2006, at 11:44, Peter Cohen wrote:
450 get more sponsors. get a cheaper location, get
something, this is a lot of money and is really monday and 1/2
tuesday.
We're talking about half of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and half of
Wednesday.
We are working hard to get more spon
On 4-Dec-2006, at 13:54, Christian Nielsen wrote:
What about splitting the conference away from the Hotel? Go back to
looking at bussing people to less expensive locations which are close.
The feedback I have heard in the past is that people are strongly in
favour of holding the meeting at
>
> Forget what I said about Vegas. I was looking at it from a cost
> perspective.
>
> One item of note, the cost to attend the conference is the same no
> matter where the venue. I am sure some venues are less expensive than
> others. Maybe pricing should be based on the location.
>
> There ha
(forgive my top of post email)
I agree this is a short-term solution, but so is raising costs. How many
people will not attend Nanog when the cost goes up? What if the cost
goes down, would more people attend which would reduce the need to
reduce costs?
Someone pointed out that this might not aff
>
> (forgive my top of post email)
>
>
> people will not attend Nanog when the cost goes up? What if the cost
> goes down, would more people attend which would reduce the need to
> reduce costs?
Reducing costs is good, but some of those reductions are going
to end up in effort worth a lot less
On 12/4/06, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Focusing on expense is a short term way to manage a loss in the
front end, the bottom line. It would be useful to talk about
solutions that drive attendance, IMHO.
I agree and would like to see if we can brainstorm some ideas that
might spu
Christian Nielsen wrote:
What about splitting the conference away from the Hotel? Go back to
looking at bussing people to less expensive locations which are close.
Having just done a meeting which involved a fair bit of bussing (the EPF
in Frankfurt), I'd be cautious of this, as it can prove
Reducing to two meetings per year means we lose some economy of scale
and would have to raise the price further. Regardless, we looked at
this option and the SC felt there was a need for 3 meetings per year -
so here we are.
Don
Martin Hannigan wrote:
(forgive my top of post email)
people
Don Welch, Merit Network wrote:
> Reducing to two meetings per year means we lose some economy of scale
> and would have to raise the price further. Regardless, we looked at
> this option and the SC felt there was a need for 3 meetings per year -
> so here we are.
this statement is somewhat inacc
>
> On 12/4/06, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
> 1) Provide a mechanism for vendors to send to NANOG a box of schwag
> (Tshirts, USB memsticks, USB disks loaded with freeware, product
> literature, whatever). This might provide a subtle enticement to get a
> NANOG vendor kit
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
2 x a year is not such a bad idea if it could help with costs, and
I believe that this would be a far more effective way to increase
revenue i.e. removing a meeting, and make it the winter meeting.
It would potentially expand available content for the
Randy Bush wrote:
Don Welch, Merit Network wrote:
Reducing to two meetings per year means we lose some economy of scale
and would have to raise the price further. Regardless, we looked at
this option and the SC felt there was a need for 3 meetings per year -
so here we are.
this statement is
On 4-Dec-2006, at 17:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
If you agree that cutting cost is a secondary component to fixing
the root cause, why not start with the root cause?
The SC felt that fixing the immediate symptom (that costs exceed
revenue, and the reserve fund is shrinking, and has been doin
>
>
> On 4-Dec-2006, at 17:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > If you agree that cutting cost is a secondary component to fixing
> > the root cause, why not start with the root cause?
>
> The SC felt that fixing the immediate symptom (that costs exceed
> revenue, and the reserve fund is shrinkin
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not really tracks. A reduction in the littany of things that we're open
to receiving as input to content. A lot of it isn't relevant any
longer.
Any guidance on how you define that relevance boundary?
One of my (personal) opinions is that if a talk belongs at another
17 matches
Mail list logo
