Michael,
On 1/20/2012 10:04 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
If such a fee were to offset this "reduction", then the push towards RPS
might be revenue neutral, or even positive, and that would help remove
some of the hurdles.
Hmmm. Since Paul concurs with my assessment that the current thread
On Jan 20, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I didn't put:
>
>> o If the tools make regular IETF meetings and interim meetings much
>> more effective, the IETF might be able to reduce the number of
>> regular meetings each year from three to two. This would
>> signific
>>> I thought that the point was to determine whether the IETF is financially
>>> incentivized to facilitate remote participation or whether the bar for
>>> enhancing remote participation was something other than technological or
>>> social.
>>
>>
>> Except that that isn't in scope for the curren
> "Wes" == Wes Beebee writes:
Wes> I thought that the point was to determine whether the IETF is
Wes> financially incentivized to facilitate remote participation or
Wes> whether the bar for enhancing remote participation was
Wes> something other than technological or social.
On Jan 20, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 9:25 AM, Wes Beebee wrote:
>> Peter -
>>
>> I thought that the point was to determine whether the IETF is financially
>> incentivized to facilitate remote participation or whether the bar for
>> enhancing remote participation was som
On 1/20/2012 9:25 AM, Wes Beebee wrote:
Peter -
I thought that the point was to determine whether the IETF is financially
incentivized to facilitate remote participation or whether the bar for
enhancing remote participation was something other than technological or
social.
Except that that
Ah, I thought it was more about technology. Carry on. :)
On 1/20/12 10:25 AM, Wes Beebee wrote:
> Peter -
>
> I thought that the point was to determine whether the IETF is financially
> incentivized to facilitate remote participation or whether the bar for
> enhancing remote participation was som
> "Marshall" == Marshall Eubanks writes:
Marshall> If you cut out one meeting per year, you will cut revenue
...
Marshall> ... $ 1.1 million in all.
Marshall> You will reduce expenses by (VERY roughly) by $ 1.2
Marshall> million.
Thank you for this analysis.
It is precisely
Peter -
I thought that the point was to determine whether the IETF is financially
incentivized to facilitate remote participation or whether the bar for
enhancing remote participation was something other than technological or
social.
- Wes
On 1/20/12 12:15 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote:
> Is t
> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman writes:
>> Paul, it would be useful if the document could indicate what
>> portion of the IETF meeting revenue goes to support non-meeting
>> activities.
Paul> Three IAOC members have weighed in on why I don't want to do
Paul> that in the draft. S
Is this thread at all related to vmeet? Is there a better venue for such
discussions?
/psa
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
> "Ray" == Ray Pelletier writes:
>> The IAOC reports on meeting revenue and expenses each plenary.
>> The numbers are in the proceedings.
Ray> Also see: http://iaoc.ietf.org/mfstatement_detail.html
Thank you, this is the page I wanted.
Quebec generated $316,608 towards operatio
On 1/20/2012 3:41 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a financial question that I think is relevant, though. What is the
budget for this? But requirements that may seem reasonable if your budget is
$100,000 per meeting would not if your budget is $10,000 per meeting.
There are perhaps four differ
On Jan 20, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a financial question that I think is relevant, though. What is the
> budget for this? But requirements that may seem reasonable if your budget is
> $100,000 per meeting would not if your budget is $10,000 per meeting.
I'm not sure that is
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> I hope that this analysis is useful. Again, this is just my take on
>> things, and I am solely responsible for any errors. If you want to
>> poke and prod the numbers, I would be glad to
On Jan 20, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I hope that this analysis is useful. Again, this is just my take on
> things, and I am solely responsible for any errors. If you want to
> poke and prod the numbers, I would be glad to discuss this further, on
> this list (if the Chair approv
16 matches
Mail list logo
