Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\)) |
Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 24 Nov 2016 01:50:00 +0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> On 23 Nov. 2016, at 8:37 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> Reading Bill's description about DC intersessional (when
> I was not involved), seems things have been a bit fluid.
>
> The last time there was a definite restriction on the number
> participants regardless of funding, but it may have been due to venue
> size only (I recall discussions about negotiation balance from earlier
> events,
Wasn’t there some remote participation in some previous infer-sessionals? I do not recall them ever being ‘closed’, just with limited travel support (but I did not attend the last one).
> but they may not be relevant anymore). So while the number of
> funded travellers is certainly fixed now, it may be more self-funded
> participants could join, but that's not certain, and won't be until we
> know the venue.
Obviously, if the location ends up being somewhere where there are already active NCUC members (which would be true for LA or Washington) this is a significant question.
David
|
|
|