Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
2017-04-14 11:46:46
Hi Stewart,
Right, so this is why it's better for everyone to be remote.
Except that the IETF funding model requires attendees to pay their
meeting fee.
I believe that the model can be changed, for example remote
participation may require some small fee too. We need to make remote
participation as productive as the local one and prepare financial models.
I believe if IETF has meeting to Sydney, at least some local communities
in Europe or South America prepare their side meetings interconnected
with the main meeting - and those side meeting organizers may need to
pay a participation fee - this is just an idea.
Michal
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks, (continued)
- Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks, joel jaeggli
- Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks, Dave Crocker
- Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks, Eliot Lear
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Michael Richardson
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities,
Michal Krsek <=
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Michael Richardson
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Fernando Gont
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Dave Crocker
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Michal Krsek
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Fernando Gont
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Carsten Bormann
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, mike stJohns
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Carsten Bormann
- Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Christer Holmberg
- RE: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities, Andrew Allen
|
|
|