IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 11 April 2017 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333D212EB2F for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=UIpPP81/; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=L85n5eUh
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 VhKTphcwK3sb for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CB7612EB19 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD683BD361 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:18:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1491931105; bh=tmIWRde73W82g7K81sRjAhSs/BV2dSOm7icDBpaUGq0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UIpPP81/GD1wX5O6+8vudI+xlXXq4C4x3PI8s3YP7sQJ9m3X6zZKvLHZNCkczg02l 9kkvCaV2LumB0M3ZEDrihHWo4H6E57X8kcwAVVBfuDtJ1emZiINQU3pdg5jZ+3CW2o LqVk+w4YBFm49pcJ0kcDCJCbqQaUUROOVz7sgWko=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDADggW9Nsuu for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:18:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:18:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1491931104; bh=tmIWRde73W82g7K81sRjAhSs/BV2dSOm7icDBpaUGq0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=L85n5eUhGfWjHZp/ac6eEvzQHye41N/toLnqvBR8qRJEHXqhBWKY/9kK8GRKQJRNw MOJSHzWG6prdatxqJCgZ3zS7M7/RrquOPNQJr9k4jKm6VRyaZhfoYoDO5wu8ScpuAb Fcnyh4aQXumnY1aRHu4EZApYLpo6X/P9Gb9DJR78=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170411171823.GE2378@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <37de22dc-04a4-f868-698e-cf03cd791957@cisco.com> <a1b4fb14-64ec-2848-91e7-faa93ba6e697@labn.net> <cfd7ace5-d834-fb41-57a4-ea11d0126f0f@cisco.com> <10ee5913-87d4-d895-e880-54471b2469a7@labn.net> <759DD927-BEC2-4989-A9F5-46B7DD090B24@qti.qualcomm.com> <4fdf7dea-b565-845e-1e0e-541d88a530e1@labn.net> <1CB0773F-602C-4F45-BBEF-E9708F80032E@qti.qualcomm.com> <9d19e10a-8030-2d79-c587-256e07a7892e@cisco.com> <b4365a4f-f378-2766-26fa-d430e1d80916@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b4365a4f-f378-2766-26fa-d430e1d80916@labn.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/wFFi-049L2AJSyTyL-fgrLL6k0k>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:19:03 -0000

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Why does that follow?  It could be that a new sponsorship arrangement
supports IETF activities generally, and maybe meetings are a net loss.
I suspect that's how ICANN operates, just for instance (their meeting
budgets are amazing, and it seems unlikely that they get enough
sponsorship to cover them.  And they charge no fees).

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email