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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 12/04/2017 06:35, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/11/2017 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 12/04/2017 06:12, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/11/17 8:03 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>> What about something along the lines of, "The venue appears to be
>>>> consistent with the bounds of the budget for the meeting"?
>>>>
>>> I don't see a problem with that sort of text, but let me ask this
>>> question: has there ever been a meeting where that WASN'T true?
>> And why are we even discussing this? IASA has the responsibility
>> for managing the budget, including any tradeoffs between various
>> meetings. That doesn't need micro-managing by RFC text.
> 
> For me the driver is for the community to provide some direction on
> meeting expenses so that the IAOC doesn't have the freedom to choose
> meeting locations that end up resulting with the community paying even
> higher bills.

Understood, but since money is fungible, that is an issue of the total
annual budget and how much of it comes from meeting attendance fees.
It's not directly a matter of the costs of an idividual venue. 

> I've talked with folks who have said meeting costs are
> already driving away (their) participation and don't want to see it get
> worse.  

Sure, but that is the sum of meeting fee + hotel + airfare + expenses.
Minimising that might also be a goal, but it's a different goal.

> Capturing the gist of this is certainly hard. The no-loss on a
> meeting was a way of covering this concern to some degree.  Andrew's
> language is IMO compromise that at least keeps the topic of expenses as
> part of the decision making process.

Fair enough, but minimising expense to IASA is different from minimising
expense to each participant.

    Brian