On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com> wrote: > That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance > since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are > just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole > idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies > manage expenses. I can assure you it isn't. Have you noticed that nobody from any company has piped up in this thread to say "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!". I can assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500 for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when it comes to standards tracking. Those companies who are whining about economic downturn are unlikely to send anybody even at $500/head. Those that value the IETF meetings will see a raised price as being an investment regardless of price. In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to - please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) There seems to be a circular argument occuring here to justify why companies should be able to send hundreds of employees along at the cost of active participation from individuals who may very well have valid points - I'm sure the IETF are interested in hearing from the OSS community as well, aren't they? Put it this way - let's suppose an organisation wishes to send more than one rep to a meeting. They pay $250 more per head - if there are five reps then thats an extra $1250. You then have a choice of either letting two individuals in for free, or giving a discount of $250 to 5 individuals, or whatever. The company doesn't mind, you probably increase attendance, and you're STILL not loosing money. Which bit of "you're not going to see cash disappear if you do this" are people having problems understanding? Actually, like I suggested in my previous mail, I suspect that certain individuals involved with the IETF are quite happy with hob-nobbing with the big multi-nationals and don't give a damn what lone consulants and developers who actually have to deploy the technologies think, and I'm beginning to strongly suspect that if all individual participants crawled under a rock and never showed any further interest in the IETF, many people would break open the champagne. Shame really. Ho-hum. -- Paul Robinson