--On 18. august 2005 12:53 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On costs, my guess is that if we went permanently to no-host meetings,
we would need to raise the fee by around $250 (hand-waving estimate).
But that's not the only argument - a local host is essential when going to
a new country, and extremely valuable even in familiar countries, for
local arrangements.
I haven't seen the details for the hostless meetings , but my 20.000-foot
impression was that the surplus from those meetings wasn't that far off the
hosted ones.
The hostless meetings were:
62 - Minneapolis, spring 2005
60 - San Diego, summer 2004
58 - Minneapolis, fall 2003 (1233 attendees)
56 - San Francisco, spring 2003 (1679 attendees)
In 2003, when 2 out of 3 meetings were hostless, we ran a deficit of USD
141.204 according to <http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/financials-2003.html>
- that translates to roughly 7% of gross IETF revenue, or 48 dollars per
attendee at the two hostless meetings.
"Hostless" doesn't mean "sponsorless", of course - at both those 2
meetings, the cost of networking stuff was HEAVILY contributed to by
volunteers and by companies who lent equipment.
No argument on the need for local contacts for out-of-country meetings, but
it's possible that "local guidance" can be had from organizations like
RIPE, who might be hesitant to accept the full responsibilities of a
traditional "hosting".
Just trying to help think out-of-the-box :-)
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf