Florian Effenberger wrote: > >By the way, are there other "environment" criteria which might be added > >for the CfL? For example, the overall "fuel consumption" to attend the > >conference (based on the knowledge who usually attends), the use of > >renewable energy or availability of recycling? > > I'm still a bit hesitant. Not many people showed their interest in a > virtual-only conference. Cc'ing d...@marketing if some more people > want that. Otherwise we just might leave out the paragraph... > I agree with all of you that a pure virtual conference is a waste - working in worldwide-dispersed team, I can tell you how much of a difference face2face meetings are.
Regarding the above mentioned environmental criteria - I'd consider anything that has no direct influence on resource consumption (e.g. flight miles - I've yet to see the airline that has to schedule an extra plane for an OOoCon. And the additional fuel consumption for an occupied seat, in comparison to an empty seat, is negligible. And 100 times negligible is still negligible. A different topic, of course, is swag produced, paper wasted, taxi miles from city to distant conference location etc.) not too different from green- washing. Cheers, -- Thorsten
pgpUQpntR3qJg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
