g'day,
Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> 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.
Well, since you asked, "oooh, no, that would be a bad idea".
I've run my own company, I've been an independent consultant and I was
an Engineering Director at Cisco for a couple of years. At Cisco I
managed a team of about 80 people, and I got to decide how many of them
would go to the IETF each meeting. Yup, at Cisco we didn't ask John
Chambers how many people to send to the IETF, each Business Unit made
these decisions independently based upon the needs of their markets. We
managed our own budgets and schedules, and had to hit both revenue and
spending milestones along the way. The IETF was just one small part of
what we did and that's true for all the other Business Units at Cisco
who independently decide who to send to each meeting.
In a world of market downturns the difference between $500 a person and
$5,000 is not a "drop in the proverbial ocean". Adding an extra $15,000
annual cost, times the several people I sent each trip would definitely
have led to me looking for cutbacks. Yes, even large companies need to
watch their spending. In at least one case where I allowed folks to go
to a set of meetings, I can assure you I would *not* have authorized it
if the costs had increased by an order of magnitude.
I fully endorse keeping my people in the industry loop, I endorse open
standards and I endorse career development for my staff but given what
the markets have done over the past two years, you shouldn't assume
people like me would just roll over and pay whatever was charged. Not on
*this* reality plane.
And even if we did, I agree with the previous posters who question the
effect this would have on the organization. The more dependent you are
on a smaller group of decision-makers who hold the purse strings, the
more beholden to them you become. Yes, $450 is a lot of money to small
companies, and when I was an independent consultant on more than one
occasion I elected not to go to a meeting because of the cost, but
having sat on both sides of the fence, asking one group to subsidize
another doesn't seem to ever be a healthy long term strategy for any
group.
So, that leaves cost containment. Does the IETF spend too much on
cookies? I suspect not, but as Harald has pointed out the figures are
out there. Go have a look and let us know where you think the cuts
should should be made. Blindly assuming that "large corporations" will
willingly pay an order of magnitude more for the privilege of
subsidizing individual contributors doesn't seem viable to me...
- peterd
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch peterd@gydig.com
Gydig Software
"This, my friend, is a pint."
"It comes in pints?!? I'm getting one!!"
- Lord of the Rings
----------------------------------------------------------------------