Ray Pelletier wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in
the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying
to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for each meeting
will be
really difficult.
IMO, the current trend and situation is not sustainable.
It may be fine for professional standards attenders, but
I'm trying to get some people to show up in my WG who
actually write code and run networks for a living.
They don't want to come here anymore.
What changes would have to be made so that they would want to attend?
my $0.02:
Nothing -- not in the current meeting format.
A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of standards-track protocols.
The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings.
Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings.
WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and
get them done fast. Decisions validated on the WG mailing
list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday.
The meeting slot allocation (General Agenda)
is set in stone 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
BOF agendas are due 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
No exceptions.
Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course,
and better remote meeting participation tools over time.
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
people will be able to participate.
The meeting fee represented 41% of the total cost of
my attendance to IETF 65. IMO, sponsors at the Plenary
meeting would be appropriate, and could help the IETF
fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference.
Ray
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf