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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Sounds like it's time for me to drop this one - oh well would have liked
to keep *something* on expense control...

Lou


On 4/11/2017 2:55 PM, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
>
> On 4/11/17, 11:35 AM, "Mtgvenue on behalf of Lou Berger"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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. 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.  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.
> I agree with Brian, and I¹m worried that this is getting too deep into
> trying to codify in a a few sentences what is a complex issue and
> something that the IASA is already tasked with managing.
>
> A no-loss meeting isn¹t the main finance objective, the main finance
> objective is having an overall IASA balanced budget without overruns, and
> long term management of the meeting costs so as to get the best value for
> the IETF and to keep the IETF viable.
>
> However both of those are not something that is a requirement we can code
> in a meeting venue selection requirement.
>
>
>