Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
2010-08-30 10:34:22
At 12:58 AM -0700 8/28/10, Fred Baker wrote:
Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally "secondary" to me.
I take a commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do
something else (flight or train, and the train's a lot more
comfortable than flying), and I'm there. If I'm on three flights or
two and a train, to me that's pretty normal. Leaves me wondering
what the fuss is about.
I'm glad it was so easy for you to get to Maastricht and Hiroshima.
I know that a number of people had equally easy access. However,
others had much more difficult journeys, involving multiple
trains/taxis, and confusing and conflicting information.
If you're arguing against Maastricht on the basis of it being
secondary, do you really want to go there?
Maastricht is not well-connected to international airports in the summer.
I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by
your analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht,
although we had to fix the Internet access in the conference hotel.
My only complaint there, to be honest, is that I used Swisscom in
the Crowne Plaza and several other hotels while in Europe, and with
the exception of the NH Airport Brussels, they all had loss rates
on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I was
measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city.
In Hiroshima, we met in a large hotel in a dense area. In
Maastricht, there was only one hotel close to where we met, and the
Internet access required a Herculean effort that I don't think we
have a right to demand. (It was difficult to find smoke-free food in
Hiroshima, except for the nearby department store's food court, but I
can live with that.)
So, I'd say both Maastricht and Hiroshima were hard to get to, and
Maastricht additionally had less good facilities.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the
time to make it shorter. --Blaise Pascal
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, (continued)
- RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Glen Zorn
- Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Randall Gellens
- RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Glen Zorn
- RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Randall Gellens
- RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Glen Zorn
- Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Fernando Gont
- Message not available
- Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Mary Barnes
- Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09, Glen Zorn
- Message not available
- Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09,
Randall Gellens <=
|
|
|