Dependency on hosts (Re: IETF 63 On-line Survey)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On 18. august 2005 12:53 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On costs, my guess is that if we went permanently to no-host meetings,
we would need to raise the fee by around $250 (hand-waving estimate).
But that's not the only argument - a local host is essential when going to
a new country, and extremely valuable even in familiar countries, for
local arrangements.

I haven't seen the details for the hostless meetings , but my 20.000-foot impression was that the surplus from those meetings wasn't that far off the hosted ones.

The hostless meetings were:

62 - Minneapolis, spring 2005
60 - San Diego, summer 2004
58 - Minneapolis, fall 2003 (1233 attendees)
56 - San Francisco, spring 2003 (1679 attendees)

In 2003, when 2 out of 3 meetings were hostless, we ran a deficit of USD 141.204 according to <http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/financials-2003.html> - that translates to roughly 7% of gross IETF revenue, or 48 dollars per attendee at the two hostless meetings.

"Hostless" doesn't mean "sponsorless", of course - at both those 2 meetings, the cost of networking stuff was HEAVILY contributed to by volunteers and by companies who lent equipment.

No argument on the need for local contacts for out-of-country meetings, but it's possible that "local guidance" can be had from organizations like RIPE, who might be hesitant to accept the full responsibilities of a traditional "hosting".

Just trying to help think out-of-the-box :-)

                   Harald



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]