Re: ietf meeting fees
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 31 May 2019 08:14 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1719E1200B7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 01:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GomXkZTn2M7s for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 01:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x236.google.com (mail-oi1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DF4A120019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 01:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x236.google.com with SMTP id v2so7078971oie.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 01:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w3HSeTWSkB64V5vimCZ2wLFDZgxAr2nH9Dlh2yE1KE0=; b=NiNu6709ESUIx+oPrJBiUywywUgGWsw400U0OIapkFrMTOVVh1UOk+vZAiPbCaOdUn ghgMwHJqHuG8+W2CBDrcCtBwqUFhVMpYnabDjQ/dwmT3mwQVb3wFhbenlpjWfRlIwcYX kS9Z60TkQlvIiKN9wgBgbIPWoVNYyjwGcfoTg/ql8i/OwiFE7bF9hoKZwuT2Eu8EGdkj N640bAG3VFUCy2JtP7KVIURFI1kd8kR9Y+h6y8X7/OxX9tzawnHoDXjDqfb4QRccv4wl gpMpZ61brnv086fEsGoaFEcniRniPMzqgYBPGTgg6S+9wCZ33WOh2ag9VwBpoLNmnv+O 16kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w3HSeTWSkB64V5vimCZ2wLFDZgxAr2nH9Dlh2yE1KE0=; b=lrWqKqzOH6mKg3KOBrdwdCcu3pi2jMzrrhe+OpkbUQjW0F9uhRhnVXAWtBsiPHTbcE 3fXii19gkpA0zALD4ivdq4Zlz8MpSOD4tXtSUmGESPyGPSF9T8yvplO5zkbMBXHdiQgv hsVJQKxMZrmfAeZcBAHoadISwM/fUWh7y8YubhXCAZHDrDTWx3z7L4N51ltPa3AGEDh9 CZCi2GxjH+czKYUdyEQFexyKGdJH8j8dEmzg1nPymADvsjqnJA10FxJOeNQP7Ig4180a GkVPu6xZAdE0oluNiHxCPsv+PkBTKXpBTnTZ11LutT+ZrZvJkeNEaw6NFbzxsKjmVjXH VEQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOQRWiQT5g1sf5NOXCBoOmGSzskL09JCvR07GoKul5wLDV263f YFQ9KLchW3Hl892ULo6QzoHCdZ1LUr4LNo/0EGkysw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyEaS0aQM4Izk7yoRHOcJ5D0vMeAalyfv0a1VFYE7TFlwIh+DzcbiohbIQSrMIUbuNCh4Q5gMw3GV7XieVKSi8=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f2d7:: with SMTP id q206mr5322109oih.52.1559290471254; Fri, 31 May 2019 01:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADnDZ88JjPSSDRiT_U9CVeppytX=0LPyTK6iQF=Tnpn+FzL8Sg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88JjPSSDRiT_U9CVeppytX=0LPyTK6iQF=Tnpn+FzL8Sg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 10:14:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89wZRfPmYNE6gdoLDQdS9QKDahqfFL6Q4eHEAPFNwVYEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ietf meeting fees
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a41130058a2a9ae7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q969liPY5jdtQiS75AVctRnAJbA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 08:14:35 -0000
On 5/28/2019 6:49 PM, 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. > Yes substantial, but that money should not always to be to general IETF. To manage budget we should focus and be more effective and efficient. We have many WGs/Areas, but they have very huge different room-sizes/attendees/agendas/progress or different importance/priority/directions. So why IETF should only charge meeting-volunteers per day or week? It is better to make it per WG meeting, so if the expected number of attendees of a WG meeting is less than 10, then no need for spending meeting time and money, they should discuss remotely on the list very easily and conclude. > > > 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. > > IMO - it's not inertia as much as reality. In the current "we don't > have members" and "we don't charge for standards" model, we have three > funding sources: meeting fees, sponsor contributions (both meeting and > sustaining), and checks from the parents ... I mean ISOC > contributions. > We don't charge for standards that is excellent, but we need to focus meeting time to important Agendas that has high interest or values, also we can limit time of input per participant per WG, as in face to face discussions inputs should be less than 5 minutes managed by WG chair. However, I think we can get interested rich volunteers to pay IETF costs for the benefit of the Internet and/or IETF, it depends on IETF marketing values and management. > We could become more like other standards > organizations by charging for either or both of membership (student, > researcher, personal, corporate etc) and copies of the standards, but I > grok that either of those changes could change the fundamentals of the > IETF in a way that could make us *less* viable or relevant. > Yes your right, but IMO because the current fundamentals we may raise money, > We could > add another funding path - endowments - but that requires someone(s) > with a particular skillset and a really big rolodex and usually some > quid pro quo's in the toolbox to get money put into the endowment - and > I don't see the IETF naming buildings for contributors anytime soon. > > I'm sure there are other vaguely related ways we could make money, but > they all will require a startup investment of time and money, and an > ongoing investment in interest from the IETF community. I'm having > problems figuring what those might be. > IMHO, usually in ietf community it is not one community, but different engineers from different experiences and different cultures and different countries, also there are number of different IETF WGs or author-teams, those should work-together/be-directed to raise/pay money for their participation/interest in IETF/WG. Therefore, IMHO the IETF General Area Should create a WG (can name it raising money WG) that has one/some participant(s) per IETF WG. This way we focus this WG on where the community is interested more and where the money should priorities in size and direction, so it when contacting volunteers it can get money either per IETF WG or in general for IETF. For example, if I am asked to volunteer in IETF I will not volunteer in general, but I will volunteer in IETF WG that I participate, or will volunteer for the best of poor communities that need good quality Internet Service, so may be will decide put some money to HomeNet WG, or Security WG, or etc. > > So in the current model we can a) charge higher meeting fees, b) get > more sponsorship, and c) ask ISOC for a bigger check. None of these > wells are bottomless. We could reduce expenditures - but what would you > cut? Meeting related munchies and internet? Remote access bandwidth? > Staff costs? Tools support? Standards production? > The solution is by having two strategies/policies, one strategy of getting more rich volunteers that can help the Internet Future and that can believe in IETF/ISOC fundamentals. This needs to be with options where the money is to be spent if paid. Then the meeting fees can be discounted either per WG meeting or per week-meeting or per etc. The second strategy is using discounts of the meeting fees, so we continue with fixed fees as current policy but we add discounts for marketing IETF WG/Area/meeting (the current policy does only discounts for students but what about different communities). We may have a change in number of days of meeting so it depends on the interest, why do we always fix it to a weak? It depends on knowing the interest/time in meeting. I never heard or seen on WG list a forecast of meeting size, usually IETF WG chair must find the efficient way to save IETF money/costs, so that will help in the discount strategy. Both strategies need discussions and new ideas. > > > > >> 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. > IETF managers or IETF general Area should solve this problem, we are not handwaving but discussing. > > > > Perhaps we should also require more than handwaving reasons for > > staying the same. :-) > Staying the same is very bad because life is changing in many directions and people/interests are changing, in future many may not be interested in such organisation/company/Area/WG/team, that is the fear of any organisation/WG. It was good that we had changes in IETF areas but had no changes to costs per WG meetings. In WGs the number of participants are different so why we pay the same per day, that is wrong in business. If you changes the price of meeting per WG meeting then IMHO your meeting number/size will increase per room and money will increase per day. One WG in IETF General Area must look into this and discuss it at least. > > See above - it's really just a question of who we want to be and what > we're willing to pay to become that. If you can tell me who we want to > be, I can help you with figuring out what it's going to cost in time, > reputation, angst, etc. > We want to have more effective/productive participants in IETF, or more Internet Community Interest in IETF, or more work done with higher quality and less errors. Any organisation wants that, and we already have many are volunteering time so we need to organise that and create a WG in general area to discuss and produce a road-map for money raising. > > > > > > (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?) > We in IETF work by discussions in WGs so my proposal is clear above. > > Most of the money proposals have been "why can't we do X - it won't cost > much" without "I think company C might be willing to fund X if we do Y > as well" or "if we charge $10 more on the meeting fee, we can recoup the > cost and there's enough interest to do that with minimal whining about > expensive meeting fees" or similar thoughts. I'm looking for at least > some understanding that nothing is free and that (probably) someone > isn't just going to write a check to cover costs. > work needs to be done by a WG to make a clear policy for volunteering, for now there is no information if some one wants to pay one WG how it will be spent. The only best way to pay volunteering to IETF-WG/some-IETF-WG is by paying day/week fees and face-to-face participate, but it is not optional for me in Africa interested in one IETF-WG not able to face-to-face participate but want to pay volunteering amount to that WG because of my interest in its values and in my remote-participation. IMHO, that needs to be discussed and make a good practice to make it free for volunteers to pay per IETF-WG or meeting room or even meeting-time. > > In the instant case what I mean by enough detail is to do: 1) propose a > functional change in enough detail that you can do (2), 2) analyze > approximately how much it will cost us (additional expenditure and/or > lost income), 3) figure out if it can be covered using current > resources, 4) whether the change has priority over other calls on the > funding, and 5) if 3 or 4 is "no" is there another source of funding > available? 6) if (5) is "n", exit or revise (1) and repeat. > > > > > > 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. > > Even better - sell the rights to a technical conference company to show > up and do their own dog and pony show - with... wait for it ... > conference fees. Why reinvent this or try and do it ourselves? Of > course there will be unintended consequences - we'll have to find venues > that can handle larger crowds for example which will lock us out of some > of our current locales and definitely limit us in seeking out new > locations. Then there's the "we want to make money" vs "we think this > country you want to go to has some [human rights | LGBT | political | > visa | pollution | etc] problems and the IETF standards folk don't want > to go" dichotomy between a for-profit technical conference and .. us. > I am not in favour of conferences by IETF, because we are doing standards and we work in groups some times for long time. IMHO, IETF can get more volunteers and get more interest because of its current fundamentals of ISOC, but ietf-management need to more encourage volunteering participants/organisations (i.e. volunteer time, effort, money), and need to market IETF in the direction of community interest and best practice of Internet. Management need new strategies, I suggested two above which can be discussed by one WG in general area to make the money raising policy. AB
- AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Aaron Falk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Scott O. Bradner
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Gaming email [was: AD Sponsorship of draft-moones… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Gaming email [was: AD Sponsorship of draft-mo… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Gaming email [was: AD Sponsorship of draft-mo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Recall petitions as an attack vector (was: Re: AD… John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Keith Moore
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Dave Taht
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eliot Lear
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Joel M. Halpern
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Keith Moore
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew Sullivan
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev 'Andrew Sullivan'
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Suresh Krishnan
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Suresh Krishnan
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stephen Farrell
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Pete Resnick
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Theodore Ts'o
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Iyedi Goma
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… John C Klensin
- Remote participant fees (was : Re: [Eligibility-d… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Keith Moore
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Michael StJohns
- ietf meeting fees Keith Moore
- Re: ietf meeting fees Michael StJohns
- Re: ietf meeting fees Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ietf meeting fees Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ietf meeting fees Bob Hinden
- Re: ietf meeting fees Michael Richardson
- Re: ietf meeting fees John C Klensin
- Re: ietf meeting fees Andrew Sullivan
- Re: ietf meeting fees Livingood, Jason
- Re: ietf meeting fees George Michaelson
- Re: ietf meeting fees Abdussalam Baryun