Bonney Robin Hood Kooper wrote:
[..]
But if you take the
system view and consider the big picture, and try to
see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a
result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF
standards, [..]
If you are not seeing any personal or business
Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an
intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in,
and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session.
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars -
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things
accomplished in the
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said
the ideas are reviewed by WGs.
nor
On Mar 18, grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
and afternoon stimulants failed to help you stay awake during your various
WGs, BOFs, and hallway discussions?
Stimulants? Who needs stimulants when you've got
You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your
naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of
squashing, not originating, WG items.
since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems
entirely appropriate.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic:
it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure
don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a
read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server,
To believe this, you must believe that large vendors
are unable to ship a
product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp.
Stephen,
It does increase the acceptance of a solution
specially when customers are concerned about
inter-operatability issues. It is more so in carrier
networks.
On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think every one missed the point due to my not being
a bit more precise, and using a very strong word.
I understood your point fine - what I had problems understanding were the
responses. For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized to handle credit card
transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on whether the penalty is
enough to pay for the overhead.
The average fee paid in 2001
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year
Paul Robinson wrote:
...
1. More money will be raised - Cisco et al are going to send their people
regardless, and the point where they do not see it as being economically
viable to do so is going to be quite high
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF
I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.)
Yes--and they get what they pay for: a consortium to rubber-stamp their
proposals.
large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The
whole
idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way
companies
manage expenses.
In fact, large corporations can be *more* sensitive to meeting costs,
because they have better
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
multicast feed.
In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better,
i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc.
And before anyone starts whining about not
I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way
to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However,
I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then
they'd expect their word to carry more weight. IMHO the only way to
make sure
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 15:59 + Paul Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due
to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word
'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation
g'day,
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole
idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies
manage expenses.
I can assure you it isn't.
Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged
to reply.
Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i
am saying is that neither of you have any data. Let's look at some
actual numbers, and we can then have a reasoned discussion...
/mtr
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 -0800 Kevin C. Almeroth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
multicast feed.
In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better,
i.e.
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 AM -0800 Kevin C. Almeroth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access,
the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this
creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out
Kooper
Cc: Marshall Rose; Joe Touch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think every one missed the point due to my not being
a bit more precise, and using a very strong word.
I understood your point fine
At 11:23 AM 3/18/02, Keith Moore wrote:
I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way
to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However,
I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then
they'd expect their word to carry more
On Mar 18, Scott Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip all your arguments that I now accept as being reasonable now I've had
a reasonable intake of Dr. Pepper and cigarettes :-)
I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent
developers to find funding. So good that
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:44:50AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the
protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing
through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Keith == Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Keith And as much as the meeting costs annoy me, I haven't thought of a better
Keith way to fund IETF. But I'd be curious to know whether holding meetings
Keith in other venues (say university
--- Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150
penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized
to handle credit card
transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on
whether the penalty is
Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Have you noticed that nobody from any company has
piped up in this thread to say oooh, no, that would be a bad
idea!.
I wouldn't have used just those words, perhaps, but just so there is
no misunderstanding:
Oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!
I
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole
idea of tiered prices is based on a massive
Paul Robinson wrote:
[..]
For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you know how much
the coffee costs?' raised the question 'Do you think the coffee is critical
to have at those meetings?'.
At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
and afternoon
Paul Robinson wrote:
[..]
please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-)
Enabling cookies improves information exchange between participants.
cheers,
gja
I'm intrigued that the reggo figures say attendance is shrinking. Amazed
but also delighted in a way, because there is no question smaller is
more functional. Obviously sad for those who can't attend, I'm not
saying this is unequivocally wonderful or anything.
The thing is, it doesn't *feel*
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 12:25 -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150
penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized
to handle credit
g'day,
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to
the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is
overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to -
please, ask yourself whether
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
I can
assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500
for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when
it comes to standards tracking.
I can assure you that you are as wrong as
This is a very old problem in many situations.
I remember well dealing with it in the LA ACM back in the 1960's...
People were objecting to paying $5.00 for dinner;-)...
One answer is to set up some kind of Hardship Case program to which
hardship cases may submit an application for a special
--On 18. mars 2002 13:56 -0600 Michael Richardson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As another independant consultant, I am actually far more price
sensitive on the hotel and food costs than I am on anything. (And the
ritzier the hotel, the higher the cost of the food, and the availability
of a
There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps we
should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for
travel, expenses, etc.
How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is
short. ;) Is it possible to be there electronically?
--
Thor
Robinson; Bonney Kooper; Marshall Rose; Joe Touch;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps
we
should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for
travel, expenses, etc.
How can I
At 02:34 PM 3/16/02 -0800, Bonney Kooper wrote:
The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions.
This is effectively the membership
Marshall Rose wrote:
This is something I have discussed with several people
and every one seems to agree.
The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
registration fee alone for
I believe that the pie chart of IETF financing was shown
at the London IETF (which I missed), but the facts are
simple enough: the meetings are subsidised by industrial
sponsors, and the IETF secretariat is funded out of the
resulting surplus from the meeting fees. In addition,
the Internet
I think every one missed the point due to my not being
a bit more precise, and using a very strong word. I
drafted that mail on my very small screen mail device
which made clear thinking a bit harder :-(.
I agree that the word the öutrageous was too strong
a word and clearly doesn't apply to
Marshall Rose wrote:
Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged
to reply.
Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i
am saying is that neither of you have any data.
I had data - from other conferences. Granted, I'm asserting there
This is something I have discussed with several people
and every one seems to agree.
The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
registration fee alone for attending IETF
Bonney Kooper wrote:
The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions.
I paid out of my own pocket, and I do not think that
53 matches
Mail list logo
