Howdy,
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have to say I’m concerned about the trend here; it’s already hard for people who are not “standards professionals” to go to an IETF meeting.
I want developers and implementers to come to my meetings, not (just) people who are the “regulars.” Given the short time blocks available in an IETF meeting, as well as uncertainly around scheduling until just before the meeting (travel scheduling-wise), it seems like we’re creating ever-more-steep barriers to having them come to meetings.
I understand that the IETF has to stay "financial". However, I’d ask that we consider a number of measures to help address this situation:
* Finalising the agenda (far) before it currently is, so that people can make firm (and economic) travel plans without blocking out an entire week
I wonder if we can't do something between "finalize down to the minute" and get blocks of time that aren't a week long. In apps, for example, do "web stuff" in one block and "email stuff" in another. Solidify that early and you will get some improvement. It won't help for cross-area concerns (HTTP and WEBRTC, for example), but it might help some.
* Freezing the day pass fee (and raising the “full week” fee proportionately)
I don't follow this. Making the fee proportional, I agree with, but subsidizing the fee out of increased fees for those who do more (and potentially more cross-area work) isn't right. It might not do that now, but freezing it would lead you there eventually.
* Allowing WGs to hold interim meetings without being required to meet at the adjacent IETF meetings
So, this was forbidden to avoid regional cost shifting when the majority of participants were either U.S. or northern European; it was specifically to prevent folks from ditching a meeting in Asia and holding an interim instead, because it punished those coming from further. I think we still want to prevent that sort of exclusionary behavior, can you see other ways that do that? E.G. making the interims in the same region?
I note that you do not list "foster remote participation methods and tools" as a way around the lack of low-cost alternatives. I've heard you talk about it, but you might want to explain why a bit more here, since it is salient to where we invest.
regards,
regards,
Ted
To anticipate the objections this will raise — yes, I understand that things are structured to encourage cross-particiption and information sharing between groups. However, I believe that in doing so, all we’re really doing is discouraging participation by people who don’t have the time or interest in focusing their careers on standards full-time.
Cheers,
P.S. I’m not subscribed to IETF@, so please CC: me on replies, *unless* they’re vitriol-filled or off-topic.
--
On 2 Oct 2014, at 3:43 am, IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In preparing the final budget for 2015 and drafts for 2016 and beyond,
> we face continuing rising meeting and other costs and no corresponding
> increase in meeting registration fees. In fact, the meeting
> registration fee has not changed in 4 years.
>
> Therefore, the IAOC is proposing to raise the meeting registration fee
> by $50 per meeting starting with the March meeting in Dallas as
> follows:
>
> Early Bird Fee $650 to $700, or 8%
> Late Fee $800 to $850
> Day Passes $350 to $400
> Full time Students $150 - $175
>
> More details below, but we seek community feedback before doing this.
>
> The cause for the increase is a trend in rising costs. IETF costs relate to the
> meetings, support services (secretariat, IT), RFC Editor, and various other
> items such as tool development. IETF is funded through the meeting fees, as
> well as significant contributions through sponsors and ISOC.
>
> For the last 4 years, 2011 - 2014, the Registration Fee has been unchanged
> at $650, and for the period 2008 through 2010 the Registration Fee was $635.
>
> Over the period 2007 through 2014 the Registration Fee increased from $600
> to $650, 8.3% over the eight years. During that time Expenses, including
> meetings, RFC Editor, Secretariat, IASA, and others, increased 32%. In 2015
> Expenses will increase 6% over the 2014 forecast.
>
> As a percentage contribution to the budget, registration revenue has declined
> from 51% in 2007 to 41% in 2014. Without a registration fee increase in
> 2015, that would drop to 36% of the budget. Even with the fee increase of
> $50 in 2015, it becomes 39%.
>
> Since the implementation of IASA in 2005, the IAOC has sought to provide
> support services of high quality and value through a “regularization” of
> contractual relationship with our vendors in all the above categories. As you
> know, we submit statements of work to the community for review and do
> competitive Requests for Proposals. Our services continue to change, and in
> some cases expand, such as increasing the number of editors to handle the
> roughly 340 RFCs per year, outsourcing the NOC, and remote participation
> services.
>
> The suggested registration fee increase is sufficient to re-balance the budget
> for 2015. Unfortunately, the cost of hotel facilities and other services continues
> to grow slowly. Without further actions, additional increases may be necessary,
> and we project a $20 increase for 2016. The IAOC has taken on a task to
> determine whether we can reduce and/or prioritize our costs so that the trend
> can be minimized. No decisions have been taken about meeting fees beyond
> 2015, and they will depend on the success of the IAOC in its task.
>
> The draft budget, registration fee history, expense history and major expense
> trends can be found here: <https://iaoc.ietf.org/2015-budget.html>.
>
> Thanks for your consideration of this and your feedback. The next IAOC meeting
> is October 9th, and if possible, we would prefer to receive feedback by then
>
> Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
> Chris Griffiths, IAOC Chair
>
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/