> o Co-location with RIPE appeared useful. I agree with you Joel that > tighter packing would have made a difference. I met some people who > noted they will not attend, but probably would have attended if it > was during the week. Co-locating individual WG interims with RIPEs > and NANOGs seems like a useful concept to consider in the future. ripe/foonog would not appreciate a meeting in schedule conflict. would ietf appreciate a foonog meeting scheduled in conflict with and at the same venue as an ietf meeting? fwiw, sidr has met adjacent to a few foonogs and it was quite worthwhile to have the extra ops that brought in. i wonder if it would be good to have a sidr meeting adjacent to a security meeting. oops, we did that too i think. > o LIMs will not create a new big funding source for the IETF. We > should also right-size our organization for the task at hand. 30, > 50, or even 100 people could probably be handled as part of the > RIPE meeting, and might have been something that the RIPE > registration system and agenda could have accommodated, or have > someone sponsor a room and leave the rest to participants. foonog meeting coordination folk are generally very accommodating and generous. but beware that, often due to association with organizations which have a monopoly on scarce intergers and thus pre-crash budget contraints, foonogs often meet at expensive venues. randy