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 with this issue should talk (or email)
our IAD, Ray Pelletier, who
has a number of ideas in this area (and who reads this list).
If people feel that some sorts of sponsorship are not
appropriate, I am sure that Ray would like that input too.
In the new IASA / NeuStar system, there is no choice but to be
realistic with
cost figures. Note that the registration fee and the attendance
both went
up with this meeting, which of course means that revenue
increased. I actually think
that, with revenue and sponsorship both increasing, the IETF
should be
able to improve the meeting support and experience even more in
the future.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't
afford to block out an entire week because they don't
know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be.
(This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-)
I would support any plan that will make meetings cheaper
and easier to attend for everybody. I'd like quick action,
not a 2 year study to think about it.
Now THAT is a different matter. I think that there should be a block
in period,
starting maybe 1 week in advance, after which the schedule should
only change
because of "force majeure." (Yes, that includes floods.)
If people are flying across the planet to a meeting,
the time of the meeting needs to be predictable something more than
one RTT by airplane
in advance. Any policy to the contrary is just broken and wrong.
Regards
Marshall
Regards
Marshall
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf