Either one - I'll direct a donation to the Open Internet Endowment for meeting rooms. Or, we can increase the fees for legal requests as others have been suggesting.
If you read the thread, I was responding to the takeover of the terminal room as a meeting place. I was trying to be constructive with my suggestions. You can interpret them however you want. Mary. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Glen Zorn <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 14:13 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: > > > Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have adequate space > for both circulating between meeting rooms and for side conversations. > > > Just to be clear: you would rather that we pay higher meeting fees in > exchange for that adequate space? > > [MB] Yes. [/MB] > > > Just to be even clearer, are you offering to pay those higher fees out of > your own pocket or just to type a larger number into your expense report? > > > > > I suggest that you could cut the cookie budget if funds really are the > only reason this wouldn't be done. > > > That is one way to pay for the extra space; it might not be so popular > in this particular crowd. > > [MB] Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce cookies), > BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings for which we paid the > same meeting fee, so it seems possible to get space without increasing > meeting fees (and I thought Vancouver was selected as it was deemed a very > moderately priced venue for meetings). Note, that we did get additional > space on the 34th floor during the week (which I assumed we paid for). > Also, there was a block of rooms on the 2nd floor that we did not use for > our meetings. [/MB] > > > > > > > --Paul Hoffman > > > >
