On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Yoav Nir
<ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Uhhm, who are that “gold bureaucracy" who stay at 5-star hotels at the
IETF’s expense?
All participants, including area directors pay their own way (or their
sponsor pays their way). But 3 star hotels don’t typically have good enough
conference centers.
[MB] True. But, perhaps considering other sorts of conference facilities
with nearby hotels could be an option. In particular, if we really do
improve remote participation to the point that we reduce the number of
onsite participants, the size requirement for the conference facilities
goes down. [/MB]
Also, supporting remote participation in a better way than it works today
costs more money than is being expended today. That money has to come from
somewhere.
[MB] In one sense yes. But, given some of the work in RAI, this cost should
be going down. The ability to participate in a meeting remotely with a
very rich multimedia experience is something that we certainly ought to be
able to do with the protocols we're developing. I have worked extensively
in an environment where these technologies are essential to business (as I
imagine many of us having) and you no longer need an expensive dedicated
video unit to have a high quality experience. We are developing these
technologies in IETF in the RTCWEB and CLUE WG. If we can't leverage those
protocols for our own meetings, then we've not done something right in the
IETF. And, actually this is already happening with Meetecho. Also,
considering that much of what we need is built by vendors who have
significant participation in the IETF, I would think that the net financial
impact could be optimized.
I think the biggest problem that high quality remote participation will
introduce is that companies will become even more reluctant to send people
to the face to face meetings. I do still see value in people attending
face to face IETF meetings with some regularity, I strongly believe that
IETF moving to a model that doesn't require so many people to travel to get
the work done is a good thing and ought to be a longterm objective. I'm
not a financial expert so I can't posit that this will make sense from a
business model, but IETF is a non-profit and in that respect doing the
right thing for the community should be the overarching objective. [/MB]
Yoav
On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:46 PM, info(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org(_dot_)ec wrote:
Savings are welcomed instead fees.
What if you put all that gold bureaucracy in 3 stars hotels and not in 5?
Fly economy, have offices in cheap places and countries..
Being smart saves money and it's fun.. A lot more that looking at the
users's pocket.. But off course it's not as easy
Carlos
Internet Society Ecuador
www.isoc.org.ec
Síguenos @isocec
El 13/2/2015, a las 19:35, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:
Carlos,
That isn't the point. Somebody has to pay for the things paid for
by the existing meeting fees. Suppose that we improve the remote
participation technology such that, say, 500 people who would normally
attend a meeting stay at home. That's a direct reduction of income by
say $350000, three times a year. So the IETF is out of pocket by
$1M/year.
The actual reduction in meeting costs would be very slight. The money
has
to come from somewhere.
Does this bother me? Yes, a lot. But it's reality.
Brian
On 14/02/2015 13:13, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote:
Oh I see. Free is not serious enough..
Carlos Vera Quintana
0988141143
Sígueme @cveraq
El 13/2/2015, a las 19:03, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:
On 14/02/2015 12:52, info(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org(_dot_)ec wrote:
I guess I miss something. Some "smart" initiative to get
money from participants?
No. A discussion how to make remote participation a serious
alternative
to travelling to meetings, without breaking the budget.
Brian
Internet Society Ecuador
www.isoc.org.ec
Síguenos @isocec
El 13/2/2015, a las 17:47, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> escribió:
On 14/02/2015 10:50, Brian Trammell wrote:
hi Mary, all,
On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes
<mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
In the past I've been nervous about giving remote participation
too much
power in part because I'm worried about how that impacts meeting
fees
and in part because I value cross-area involvement.
It's possible that we could collect meeting fees from remote
attendees, offering a hardship exemption for those who can't afford it.
That would depend on remote attendance working better than it does now, I
think, but it would be unfortunate if the main impediment to making remote
attendance work well were that we didn't want to lose meeting revenue.
[MB] I totally agree on this latter point. I'm very conflicted
about charging for remote participation, but perhaps something nominal.
It's also quite possible that if we improve the quality, we will get more
remote participants.
A requirement (at least at first) to allocate n% of remote
participation fees directly to expenses related to the improvement of
remote participation would make this a lot more feasible.
But it begins to smell like a poll tax. Some people participate
remotely
because they simply can't justify the travel expenditure; if it
costs (say)
$200 to participate remotely, that would be enough to keep some
people out.
How the Secretariat could possibly validate hardship cases remotely
is beyond me.
Also, does particpate mean "watch and listen" or "watch, listen and
speak"?
I find it hard to imagine paying $200 just to watch and listen.
(Of course, I made up "$200" but it does need to be an amount of
money
that's worth collecting, and in that case it will be a significant
issue
for, say, a student in a developing country.)
Brian C