--On Friday, 09 March, 2007 22:22 +0200 Jari Arkko
I too would be interested in seeing information in the IETF
meeting page about, say, hotel's transportation service when
it exists and can be recommended. Or a warning about
unreliable taxis. John's list of things to consider when
setting up the meetings was also great.
We appear to be in agreement on the principle, and more or less
in agreement that the IASA should be taking a little more
responsibility for getting site-specific information and getting
it into circulation. If that is the case -- and I infer from
Ray's note that it is -- then I have accomplished all I set out
to do here. I'm happy to turn details back over to him, the
IAOC, and the Secretariat.
However, I wanted to play the role of the guy who reminds us
of the IETF's mission. We're in the Internet technology
business... other people are in transport etc. businesses. For
instance, one would expect that the IETF goes to major cities
with nearby major airports. These places tend to have multiple
working forms of transportation, and a demonstrated ability of
millions of people to get through the system... as Laksminath
noted, even the OMA engineers can figure this out :-) Not sure
we really NEED a lot of help from Ray to get from the airport
to the hotel, except occasional recommendation of what
transport to use. And I have heard that that thing which
starts with an "I" can be used to find information.
A slightly different view involves turning this around. We are
in the Internet technology business, not the "showing the flag
and holding meetings in exotic places" business. My expectation
is that we meet in places where we can get work done (a category
into which I'm sure Prague falls) and that, having chosen a
location, IASA/the Secretariat does everything feasible to make
certain that we can get work done in that location without
having to deal with any preventable distractions and
side-issues. Whether the side-issues turn out to be "no stable
network until Tuesday", or "no hot water in the rooms", or
"inability to absorb enough caffeine (or beer) to function", or
"no way for the vegetarians among us to eat", or "no realistic
plan for 1000+ people to all eat lunch at the same time, or "you
had better not put your laptop down and walk away, even for a
minute", I expect those who pick the site to have considered the
issues in their choice and to consider that taking some
responsibility for them is part of their role. That "taking
responsibility" might be as minor as getting a little extra
information. But the goal should be that we can concentrate on
the technical work with as undesirable few distractions as
possible, no matter how colorful or interesting.
And, for the record, I feel exactly the same way about those
issues whether we are meeting in Minneapolis, Chicago,
Vancouver, Paris, Yokohama, Prague, or on the moon (although, if
the IASA selects a meeting site there, I'd expect them to warn
people about breathing and to make some special efforts to
investigate charter flights).
You will recall that getting that administrative/ organizational
work off the plate of the IESG and the community generally was a
key part of why the IASA was created. Well, this is part of it.
Generalizing this a bit, lets not constrain ourselves too much
by setting too high requirements on what the IETF
meeting sites and organization must fulfill. I think we
could survive location-wise in any of the big cities in
the industrial world, assuming hotel etc. availability.
Visa and travel cost situations differ, but for that I
think it better to go around a little bit to spread the pain.
This slides over into the question of meeting site selection and
criteria. Different topic, I think.
And I think Ray is already treating us too well in
the meetings :-)
I think this is the cue for someone to say something about
cookies :-). Another separate topic.
Ietf mailing list