Re: [Iasa20] IASA 2.0 minutes

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:

> On 2017-4-24, at 16:29, Glenn Deen <rgd.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@netapp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> But general-purpose support is more useful than support that can only
> be spent on certain things. I think we want to give sponsors choices as to
> what things are *branded* as having received their support, without being
> restricted by actually spending the money received from a sponsor on
> exactly only those things.
> >
> > We actually are more general purpose already. The current sponsorship
> fees aren't set as the cost of the sponsored item, it's a set fee charged
> to the sponsor for the acknowledgement for having picked up the item
> sponsorship.    Specifically, the sponsor of the breaks doesn't get billed
> for the cookies or the drinks, they pay a set fee for the "right" to be
> acknowledged as the sponsor.  The fee goes into the budget under
> sponsorships revenue, and the cost of the break is managed under the budget
> for meeting catering.   That's why sponsorships are accounted for in
> general revenues, as opposed to accounting for the donation of the specific
> value of the break costs.
>
> That would be nice, but seems to some degree contradict what Ekr wrote -
> Mozilla apparently is able to (only) support the Hackathon. So I'm not sure
> where we really are at the moment.

I haven't looked at IETF's books, but I know that:

- We donated some money
- It was a lot less than the cost of the hackathon
- We were identified as sponsoring the hackathon

I know that money is fungible, but my expectation is that to the extent to
which people specifically were identified as funding the hackathon, that
the total amount they donated approximately matches that which we budget
for the hackathon. Certainly, if I learned that we had spent less on the
hackathon than Mozilla along donated, I would be sad.

-Ekr

Lars
>
> >
> > What I'm picking up  in these exchanges is that what are currently do in
> terms of variety sponsorship modes for meetings is acceptable, and that the
> modes of sponsorship, general, acknowledgement for a meeting feature,  or
> in kind,  are acceptable.
> >
> > The core problem isn't the modes of sponsorships, it's in the long term
> stability and funding reliability for the IETF, as well as the ability to
> direct how the funding is applied to benefit the IETF.   We currently are
> operating on a shorter term scale financially and without having long term
> financial control of our own established, it's very hard to have the
> independence to do long term planning.
> >
> > Glenn
> > _______________________________________________
> > iasa20 mailing list
> > iasa20@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>
>