Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Fri, 14 November 2014 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: 91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCBF1A8700 for <91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:40:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FB_BE_MILLION=1.837, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGNbZHMkseHW for <91attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:40:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B973B1A86E7 for <91attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:40:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from t2001067c03700176802518d8b97f63de.wireless-a.v6.meeting.ietf.org (t2001067c03700176802518d8b97f63de.wireless-a.v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:176:8025:18d8:b97f:63de]) (authenticated bits=0) by puck.nether.net (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAEIeeDR011242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:40:41 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <F4CB1B4F-5681-47B8-B522-2C1CFE8989F6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:40:42 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F96AFD65-DE2A-4A5A-B058-D0B96D96260F@puck.nether.net>
References: <CB79E3A1-A560-41A3-90CF-E1302AC6997E@bangj.com> <F4CB1B4F-5681-47B8-B522-2C1CFE8989F6@gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.7 (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:40:42 -0500 (EST)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/91attendees/k-24WjxayXNKPdjIsRYkxbaqwdQ
Cc: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>, "<91attendees@ietf.org>" <91attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [91attendees] IETF Fee increase alternatives
X-BeenThere: 91attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 91 attendees that have opted in on this list." <91attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/91attendees>, <mailto:91attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/91attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:91attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:91attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/91attendees>, <mailto:91attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:40:46 -0000

Tom,Bob,

> On Nov 13, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for asking this way.  I think we should consider if we are willing to compromise some of what we like to save some money.  For example, we like to have a "single roof" venue where the meeting and hotel rooms are in the same venue.  We might be able to save money by having the meeting in a convention center and have the hotels be some distance away.  It would require folks to walk, taxi, bus, subway, etc. to get there and the choices for lunches would not be as good.  This might lower the IETFs cost for meeting space and the attendee cost for the hotel rooms.  The IAOC does not currently look at these types of venues based on community feedback.
> 
> It would be good to hear from folks if they would like the IAOC to consider other types of venues if it results in lower costs for the IETF and attendees.

in attending other conferences, NANOG, IETF, RIPE end up being lower cost than more commercial oriented conferences, e.g.: Gartner, etc.

The welcome reception seemed to be right on the mark for me and my experience for food quality, quantities, etc.

Coming from the operator side, e.g.: NANOG/RIPE, it took me a day to adjust to IETF provides, this isn’t a complaint, just that I had other (perhaps irrational) expectations for the level of food provided in the morning.  NANOG also has sponsors for each individual break session, etc as well as a larger “beer and gear” event with food/drinks.

I’m not expecting IETF to feed me all my meals, nor cater to my specific dietary wackiness, that’s naturally on me.

Just my observation comparing my experience here to NANOG primarily.

Hope this is insightful.

Regarding the fee - I’m expensing this so have little sensitivity to the fee compared to Tom.  I certainly don’t want to create a large matrix of fee tiers that can be gamed, but keeping things affordable is something I see as important for in-meeting participation as much can happen in-person that is harder to occur on-list (or via other communication methods).

If someone cracks that code, they will be a millionaire i’m sure.

- Jared