Subject: Re: "potluck" terminal room

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:03:59 +0000

At 19:58 23/03/99 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

>I do like the idea of recruiting meeting attendees to show up early
>and help out when needed (whether with the terminal room or something
>else) and of having special dots on the nametags for those who do so.  
>Not only might it reduce costs, such an exercise in cooperation might
>also help to establish a more constructive attitude towards building 
>standards that benefit us all.

I am not against the idea of turning up and lending a hand, but there is a
real cost associated with this --an extra night of hotel accommodation--
that exceeds the costs I have heard estimated ($60/person) for laying on a
professional service.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:56:46 -0800 (PST)

> that exceeds the costs I have heard estimated ($60/person) for laying on a

i do not think one wants the level of expertise/experience one can get for
$60 a day near any equipment which costs more than $100.  $60 an *hour*
would be low on a consulting basis.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:56:46 -0800 (PST)

randy

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:30:37 -0800

> would be low on a consulting basis.

I believe that what was meant was an addition  $60/attendee to the 
registration fee to cover the costs -- that is, on the order of an 
additional $60*2000 = $120,000 for the professional service.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:30:37 -0800

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:08:53 +0100

>would be low on a consulting basis.

The reference was to a per-attendee fee, not the charge per staff member.

In other words, charging all attendees an additional $60 would produce 
enough additional funds to cover the terminal room, in its current form.

The questions are whether:

a) the amount of the total cost can be reduced, and/or

b) whether the required services can be reduced, and/or

c) whether there are alternate ways to cover costs, besides charging 
attendees this full amount.

Each of these questions can reasonably be answered yes, depending upon the 
REAL service requirements of the community and the availability of 
donations of time and equipment.  In particular for equipment, the 
possibility of specific purchases looks reasonable, unless one of the 
relevant vendors makes a permanent donation.

Some very good points have been suggested in this thread, besides the 
continuing strong appreciation of the current and previous host efforts:

1.  I noted a number of people repeating the view that this is an essential 
service, so that we need to be careful that it works (well) every time.

2.  Various people sounded interested in focusing this requirement on a 
subset of the full services now offered.

3.  I think the piece that I have most-often heard described as possibly 
outside the critical infrastructure are the desktop PCs.

4.  On the other hand, it's beginning to sound as if the previously-donated 
and informal wireless service has become essential.

5.  I believe that the distinction between "critical infrastructure" nicely 
permits additional, and even experimental, activities while placing them in 
a place that won't hurt the core services.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:08:53 +0100

d/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:12:08 -0800 (PST)

> attendees this full amount.

d) current service is pretty damned good, and the costs are already covered.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:12:08 -0800 (PST)

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 06:29:56 +0100

>d) current service is pretty damned good, and the costs are already covered.

Ahhh, that's right.  You previously asked what the problem was, and there 
was no direct response.  So:

In a previous notes, I characterized the underlying problem as continuing 
risk, with actual, serious problems occurring pretty frequently.  We 
regularly have problems with configuration, connectivity, performance 
and/or printing.  Outright and sustained disasters have been extremely 
rare.  Inconvenience has been pretty common, usually resolved by mid-week.

One contribution noted that this activity is quite different from a normal 
ISP, since it involves an unknown hotel physical plant, and other one-time 
factors.  This is, of course, true.  The skillset needed for doing a 
conference tool-room is not identical with that needed to run an ISP.

That contribution therefore questioned whether it is possible to get a much 
better performance.  The answer is yes.  There are people who do this sort 
of thing for a living.

Over the past few years, IETF meetings that have had no terminal room or 
access problems have had just one such contractor in common.  When he has 
been used, we've had no problems.  When he hasn't, we usually have.

To reiterate:  This must not be treated as a complaint about hosts.  It is 
quite clear that everyone recognizes the yeo-person effort and achievement 
from them and their teams.

The issue is to move the terminal room from a one-time invention by each 
host, into a regularized effort that shows the benefits of learning 
curve.  This takes technical and operations expertise in this specific type 
of task.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 06:29:56 +0100

d/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 04:21:40 -0800 (PST)

> curve.  This takes technical and operations expertise in this specific type 

thanks for prooviding this expertise, dave.  really appreciated.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 04:21:40 -0800 (PST)

randy

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:56:44 -0600

> d) current service is pretty damned good, and the costs are already covered.

Amen.  I think the only indicated step at this time is to
institutionalize the cumulative experiences and knowledge
for succeeding hosts.  I'm not suggesting a series of RFCs,
though.

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:56:44 -0600