If you read the thread, I was responding to the takeover of the terminal room as a meeting place. I was trying to be constructive with my suggestions. You can interpret them however you want.
Mary.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 14:13 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:Just to be even clearer, are you offering to pay those higher fees out of your own pocket or just to type a larger number into your expense report?
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have adequate space for both circulating between meeting rooms and for side conversations.
Just to be clear: you would rather that we pay higher meeting fees in exchange for that adequate space?[MB] Yes. [/MB]
> I suggest that you could cut the cookie budget if funds really are the only reason this wouldn't be done.
That is one way to pay for the extra space; it might not be so popular in this particular crowd.[MB] Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce cookies), BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings for which we paid the same meeting fee, so it seems possible to get space without increasing meeting fees (and I thought Vancouver was selected as it was deemed a very moderately priced venue for meetings). Note, that we did get additional space on the 34th floor during the week (which I assumed we paid for). Also, there was a block of rooms on the 2nd floor that we did not use for our meetings. [/MB]
--Paul Hoffman