We already have a not very transparent system of patronage via
options such as host, global host or whatever it is. Sure, its somewhere
deep in some ISOC/LLC/IETC/meeting-committe/... web-pages. I for once
would like to see a web page that lists all financial contributions.
If someone wants a contribution to be anonymous, then the name
of the contribution is hidden, but the contribution is shown.
Adding more options for patronage would IMHO rather increase
contributions on the lower end.
More transparency comes at the cost, but i think more transparency is
good for IETF.
Cheers
Toerless
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 01:49:50PM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2020 5:39 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > *rotfl*
> > At the risk of getting banned from Bremen for life:
> >
> > a) How many hundreds of years ago was this model retired in Bremen ?
> > b) How many decades is Bremen now the poorest state in Germany
> > living from subsidies by other states ?
>
> That model, (1) pay whatever you want, (2) it will be public what you
> paid, that is pretty much how operas, ballets, and museums are funded in
> the USA. That's called donations from the rich burghers, and they get to
> (1) claim a tax deduction and (2) get their names acknowledged in
> various programs, or in some cases carved on marble stone near the
> instance. But...
>
> > Having said this: I would love for IETF to use this model and
> > think i have said so on this list in before. I think it does
> > work well when there is sufficient financial responsibilities
> > on all sides and i am quite confident this is the case for
> > IETF.
>
> But the "rich burghers" model has a significant impact on governance. In
> the case of operas and museums, that mean the board is largely made of
> rich donors and and caters to them. I think a model like that would have
> some interesting side effects on the governance of the IETF.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
