|
Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
2016-06-09 14:46:55
On 6/9/2016 3:31 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Would it make
sense to do an experiment such that we drop one meeting for one year and
instead require active working groups to hold an Interim or several
virtual interims that fairly distribute timezone pain?
Before anyone moves too far down this path, the following need to be
answered as well:
If we drop one meeting a year, how do we compensate for the lost revenue
from that meeting? Should the meeting we drop be the one that would
tend to provide us the least revenue?
Mike
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, (continued)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective,
Michael StJohns <=
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Eliot Lear
- Meeting discussions (was: IETF 100, IAOC perspective), S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Robin Wilton
Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Jakob Heitz
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective, Ted Lemon
|
|
|