Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Eliot,


On 4/6/2017 12:46 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> On 4/5/17 11:36 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> Specifically, I think it's reasonable to explain on the list  the
>>> rational for basically saying the it's okay to plan for a meeting that
>>> will operate at a loss discussed.
>> Yep. Unless Charles or Eliot (or for that matter, anyone else on the
>> list who can do so) gets to it first, I'll post a summary of that part
>> of the discussion once I get unburied from day-job things.
> The basis for that discussion was that the financial model of the IETF
> is undergoing change, and that meeting revenue is likely not to be as
> important as it once was.  The room did not want the old model codified.

There's a bit of distance between saying we're preserving/codifying the
old model and that it's okay to knowingly setup a meeting that is going
to loose money, i.e., which will likely translate to increased meeting
fees. 

The text in question reads:

    The economics of the Venue allow the meeting to be net cash positive.

To make make it clear that it's not saying preserve the current model, how about:

    The economics of the Venue allow the meeting to not result in a net
loss.

Note: I'm not voicing an opinion on the category of importance here,
whichever one persists is fine with me.

Lou

> Eliot
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue