> 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