Meeting format (Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors")

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

Andy Bierman wrote:
> Ray Pelletier wrote:
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more 
> > > > in the
> > > > other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
> > > >
> > > > Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe 
> > > > trying to get
> > > > more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for each meeting 
> > > > will be
> > > > really difficult.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IMO, the current trend and situation is not sustainable.
> > > It may be fine for professional standards attenders, but
> > > I'm trying to get some people to show up in my WG who
> > > actually write code and run networks for a living.
> > > They don't want to come here anymore.
> >
> > What changes would have to be made so that they would want to attend?
>
> my $0.02:
>
> Nothing -- not in the current meeting format.
>
> A more workable model would be to treat the current
> type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
> laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
> in the production of standards-track protocols.
>
> The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings.
> Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings.
> WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and
> get them done fast.  Decisions validated on the WG mailing
> list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday.
are you seeing these as meetings of *all* WGs, or do you envision 
multiple meetings, each with some subset of WGs?
If (guesstimate) 50 of 120 WGs decide to meet in this format, the number 
of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 and 30.

I'm intrigued by the idea of replacing one or more IETF meetings with 
"large interims", but would like to work through exactly what's being 
proposed. (Of course, scheduling 2 years out DOES interfere with "quick" 
experiments....)
> The meeting slot allocation (General Agenda)
> is set in stone 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
> BOF agendas are due 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
> WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
> No exceptions.
....and cancellation on those WGs who do not provide such agendas? Just 
checking....
> Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course,
> and better remote meeting participation tools over time.
> If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
> smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
> people will be able to participate.
>
> The meeting fee represented 41% of the total cost of
> my attendance to IETF 65.  IMO, sponsors at the Plenary
> meeting would be appropriate, and could help the IETF
> fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference.
My cost for this meeting (VERY rough, off the top of my head):

- Hotel: 800 dollars
- Food: 400 dollars
- Airfare: 1200 dollars
- Meeting fee: 550 dollars
- Misc: 50 dollars

Total: 3000 dollars. Meeting fee percentage: 18%.
But we've been around the "how much does the meeting fee matter" bush 
before.
Cheaper is better, and how much it matters varies widely between people.

                       Harald


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf