-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jordi, from the consultant-report: (UPCASE mine)
While the day-to-day operational aspects of meetings are extremely
well coordinated, long-range planning for IETF meetings is almost
non-existent. For example, by IETF60 in August, 2004, planning for
2005 meetings had not reached any apparent degree of closure. The
IETF leadership were unaware of any firm plans for Spring or Fall of
2005, and while some progress had been made in identifying a general
location for the Summer 2005 meeting, specific venues were still
being evaluated.
Long-range planning is absolutely essential in the meeting business.
Booking well in advance and using techniques such as REPEAT VISITS to
properties that are allied through common ownership or marketing
arrangements can lead to dramatic reductions in GUEST ROOM RATES,
deposit requirements, and hotel charges. Long-range planning also
HELPS IETF MEETING ATTENDEES PLAN THEIR OWN SCHEDULES. For many
people, the commitment to go to an IETF is a major one, requiring the
use of vacation time, personal funds, and other resources.
...
for laptops. The concept of "host" (or "primary sponsor") is
certainly a useful one, however instead of focusing on terminal room,
the device could be used as a way of defraying meeting room charges,
food, or other major expenses.
...
I wanted to further emphasis this:
These self-organized, volunteer efforts, benefit from coordination
with formal meeting planning functions. For example, the core
network group requires facilities and coordination with the hotel's
telecommunications service, while the audio/video effort requires
coordination with the hotel's audio-visual contractors. Currently,
none of these volunteer efforts is linked to from meeting web pages
which are maintained by CNRI/Foretec, and there is no IETF leadership
policy on this subject.
Having been involved with various volunteer efforts (things which
inevitably turn into being a NOC team volunteer...), I can say that it
was difficult at first to figure out how to plug into the process.
It is much better now, but there remains no written policy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBQUDZkYqHRg3pndX9AQGf0AQAxcsMdErHLbz6AvBb+jrcDdwnbtfV7LNp
vEFWLaw/hvL5Qr5Jkk5Hfvo1OAbSaXZZqGJ0ItpZPgvX24NoUzJeHACbqomFtPAj
SNL0tpT8AHkD6Ym9iruPO9an77OV4c13iG5O0OMX23A/r2jiTqHwUJ44zrawMdeR
MPvdMSi1ISk=
=6woB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf