If the meeting fees are in dollars and the costs are in local currency the profits will be squeezed. Only part of the meeting fee is profit for the IETF and an even smaller part of the attendee costs. It cost my employer roughly $2,000 for me to attend the Vancouver IETF for two days. That is $6,000 for the IETF to make $1000. If costs rise beyond a certain point we will have fewer people coming for three meetings a year. If we get to a point where only the hard core are attending all three meetings and most people attend only two meetings a year it will be more profitable to reduce the number of meetings. If we had 0 meetings a year the profits to the IETF would be zero. If we had 52 meetings a year the profits would be zero. The maximizing point on the curve may be at 3 meetings today, it might even be higher (but I seriously doubt that it is 5 or more), but it is also possible that at some point it will be 2. > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:33 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia > > > Since our main source of income is meeting fees, I wonder why > you think that financial issues would motivate us to hold > fewer meetings... > > Margaret > > On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > Well one reason is that it has never happened that way and this > > institution finds it nearly impossible to change even the > most minor > > aspects of its organization. > > > > If one dare point out that OASIS and W3C have both adopted > a format in > > which they hold one annual plenary session and Working Groups > > typically hold two or three additional one or two day > meetings a year > > one can anticipate the result: lengthy condescending > lectures on IETF > > exceptionalism from elder members of the community who consider it > > their role to bully any impudent pup for the temerity of suggesting > > that change might be good. > > > > We may however find that finances force a change in approach to be > > considered, particularly if the current weakness in the dollar > > continues. > > > > I think that the absolute minimum number of times that we > need to meet > > en-masse and maintain cohesion as an institution is once a > year. And > > to do that we would have to change our approach to doing > work in ways > > that many people would find unacceptable. > > > > > > > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Thu 29/11/2007 6:32 AM > > To: michael.dillon@xxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia > > > > >> Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am > active at least > > >> half of participants are from Europe or Asia. > > > > > > Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? > > > > Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas. > > > > Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings as well. > > > > Adrian > > (IETF hotels are too expensive. Book into smaller ones, pay > less, and > > don't get thrown out.) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf