Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget implications. That being
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)
This is an interesting suggestion.
Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on hallways
discussions, during the rest of the week. However
For what it's worth, this approach seemed to work reasonably well for
the SIP P2P BOF + ad-hoc (or interim) meeting. The former was on
Tuesday, the latter on Friday afternoon.
Dave Crocker wrote:
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just
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
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
...
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
