> > i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing > > the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional > > $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel > > restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level. > > As most people I know of have to eat and drink, this suggestion would > only increase the cost of going to IETF meetings, and the ones who > would win something would be the hotel restaurants. sure, but why does the group have to subsidize it? the problem, as you point out, is that there aren't that many parameters to play with. saying "we have to keep the food" may very well make the problem insoluable (or at least too costly to solve). in other words, if most of the money is spent on food, then it really doesn't matter how much we cut back on the other things, does it? whether it's the hotel restaurants, or vendors who sublet from the hotel, or the starbucks across the street, i don't care. what i do care about is the $340K/year figure (if accurate, harald still needs to confirm that). put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting to cover the food? > I also agree with Harald that the convenient food service makes us > work more efficient, and I further think it is an important social > component. in that case, maybe we should subsidize the bar bofs as well... > To reduce the costs, John made a good point about terminal rooms, > and especially computers. These days, providing wireless > connectivity would probably be sufficient. and i agree. > Since we do not have that many parameters to play with, I think we > will have to adjust the meeting fees to the current financial > situation. What we should further do is to make sure people can > participate even if they can not afford to go to the meetings > (f2f meetings are supposed to be an optional component of IETF > work, right?). a worthy goal, regardless of the financial situation... /mtr