On 29-May-19 10:49, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 5/28/19 4:35 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>> PS - like it or not, meeting fees provide a substantial amount of the
>> money for the general IETF budget specifically including standards
>> publication.
>
> It's a given that there has to be some way to pay the bills. But if we
> have so much inertia around this way of raising revenue that it makes
> IETF less and less relevant over time, maybe IETF should address this
> problem sooner rather than later. No organization can hope to remain
> viable if it refuses to even consider adapting to changing conditions.
My understanding is that IETF LLC's jobs include fund-raising, so we do
have this issue on somebody's to-do list.
Brian
>
>> If you are arguing for actions that reduce or tend to reduce or have
>> the potential to limit the intake of funds from that model, I suggest
>> you also come up with a more than handwaving proposal for how to
>> replace those funds or explain which functions supported by the IETF
>> we're going to eliminate to cover such shortfall.
>
> Perhaps we should also require more than handwaving reasons for staying
> the same. :-)
>
> (There's a familiar set of arguments for staying the same: If you don't
> provide a detailed proposal, it's labeled handwaving. If you do provide
> a detailed proposal, it's easy to pick it apart as naive because it
> hasn't yet benefited from broad exposure and feedback. Or is there no
> longer any place for brainstorming in IETF?)
>
> I do suspect that there's likely a market for technical conferences that
> serve as a more effective way for IT and operations people to keep
> abreast of standards development and also to provide feed-forward about
> the problems that they are having and which need to be addressed. And
> that such conferences might also attract more "doers" to IETF.
>
> I'm not accustomed to designing conferences, so if you want details,
> perhaps suggest what kinds of details are needed?
>
> Keith
>
>
> .
>
