Re: [106attendees] Power strips ?

OK, the IESG discussed this and, understanding even the minimal cost
issues that we do know about, has decided not to look into it further.
Continue bringing your own adapters, as always.

Barry

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:03 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>
> Just picking an arbitrary message to reply to (the most recent), so
> read nothing into that choice...
>
> There's not a lot of use in comparing our meetings or financial
> situation to ICANN's, and I never meant to.  I simply noted that ICANN
> does use its own power strips, so it's possible.  I intend to look
> into the costs and other complexities, so we can then determine
> whether -- or not -- it's practical and useful for the IETF to do
> this.  Until we get more concrete information about those costs and
> complexities, we really don't need to be guessing.
>
> Let me see what I can find out, and we'll go from there.  Maybe it's a
> fine idea for us.  Maybe it's not.  We'll see.
>
> Barry
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:56 PM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <CALaySJLQn=2w4dn1-Ox3fYoxboJE81+dn5PGROVfHzmCd8at_Q@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> > > >As I noted, ICANN does it, and it works.  We could find out from them
> > > >what sorts of costs and approvals are involved, but they don't seem to
> > > >have problems with their not being allowed.
> > >
> > > ICANN apparently sends so much stuff to their meetings that it fills
> > > several shipping containers.  We learned this several meetings ago
> > > when one of the containers got lost.
> >
> > And by "lost" you mean "caught on fire!!!!" (actually, this wasn't the
> > ICANN container which caught alight, but it was affected by nearby
> > fire -- more info here:
> > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/fire-on-cargo-ship-affects-it-equipment-bound-for-icann57-hyderabad
> > ). It's easy to forget that a: networks rely on physical thingies, and
> > b: logistics are hard and c: planning for all eventualities is also
> > hard!
> >
> > If the same thing happened to the IETF network gear, we would be
> > scrambling to deal -- ICANN could "simply" buy their way out of the
> > issue, but the vast majority of IETF gear is donated, we don't have
> > N+1 of everything, nor an easy way to put down a credit-card and say
> > "another pile of your finest routers / switches / servers / wireless
> > please, good sir..."
> >
> > W
> >
> > >  A quick look at the ICANN budget
> > > suggests that even though they are roughly the same size as our meetings,
> > > typically 1000 people, they cost twice as much.  (This is the cost.  Their
> > > meeting revenue is deliberately zero so it's not comparable.)
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure this is not a direction that the IETF would like to go.
> > >
> > > R's,
> > > John
> > >
> > > --
> > > 106attendees mailing list
> > > 106attendees@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/106attendees
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> > idea in the first place.
> > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> > of pants.
> >    ---maf
> >
> > --
> > 106attendees mailing list
> > 106attendees@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/106attendees