[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)

2004-09-20 15:10:14
You are correct if you refer to the participation numbers in last couple of 
meetings. Historically IEEE 802 Plenaries have been much smaller in size than 
the IETF meetings. I believe that by the time when the Hilton Head and Kauai 
meetings were hold (2001, 2002), the IEEE plenaries were gathering around 1000 
attendees, while the IETF meetings were about the double size. It' s only at 
the last two meetings that IEEE continued to grow in size, while IETF 
participation decreased, so that the two organizations got to about the same 
size in participation. 

IEEE 802 Plenaries do not provide a terminals room, but they do wireless 
networking for the last three years or so. The schedule is roughly the same 
(Monday through Friday afternoon) and number of meeting rooms they use is 
higher - maybe double or more than the IETF needs.  

IEEE 802 use the services of an external events organizing company for a few 



-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
Behalf Of Robin Uyeshiro
Sent: 20 September, 2004 10:57 PM
To: 'John C Klensin'; 'Lars Eggert'; 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)

Would the IEEE 802 Plenaries have comparable geographical/logistical
requirements to IETF meetings?  Their next few plenaries are scheduled
in San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Vancouver, New Orleans, San
Diego, and Dallas.  All but one are in the US, and all are in North

I attended one plenary at Hilton Head, and talked to people about
another held on Maui, both resort areas.  This was before the crash,
though, so perhaps money is tighter now.

I'm not advocating doing the same thing; just thought another 
data point
might be helpful.

-- Robin Uyeshiro
P.S. Honolulu has a new convention center.  

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:59 AM
To: Lars Eggert; Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF 62

--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert
<lars(_dot_)eggert(_at_)netlab(_dot_)nec(_dot_)de> wrote:

Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing
for pleasant climate and good vacation spots.  I come to the
IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the
other participants have the same goal.  We should be somewhat
careful of optimizing for enjoyable location.  I'd rather see
us optimize for who can attend and cost.

If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between
the enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF
output, please post it.


I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on
experience with other organizations and meetings of similar
technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can
get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is
a nice place.  Rather, it is the tendency of people who have to
review and approve travel to look at a destination, pronounce
the words "probable boggle" and then say "no".    And I've seen
enough situations in which that has occurred to make that a real

It probably isn't enough of a concern to say "we absolutely
should, or should not, meet there", but it should be a
significant consideration.

On other observation on the US situation.  In the few years, we
have had a significant problem with participants from some
countries getting to US meetings at all due to increasing
scrutiny of visa applications and consequent difficulties in
getting visas.  Sometimes, those delays have been equivalent to
visa denial, even when no formal denial occurs.  Those
restrictions are qualitatively different from, e.g., the
fingerprint issue, since they prevent someone from even making
the decision as to whether they are willing to put up with the
marginal aggravation and intrusion to attend.  Classes of IETF
participants are excluded entirely depending on their
nationality or normal residency, and that has a direct on IETF
openness and global participation.

That is, fwiw, I've been suggesting that we reduce the focus on
meetings in the US for a few years now.  As others have pointed
out, doing that isn't quite as easy as would appear to be the
case at first glance but, IMO, we should keep trying.


Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

Ietf mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>