Is it reasonable for us to hope that, as things settle down over
time, we can reasonably expect to get to the "meeting times and
locations known 18 months to two years out" status that has been
the target for some years? Or, to put it differently, without
any unreasonable expectations about how quickly it is possible
to get back onto that basis, is it still the target and do you
consider that target plausible?
"back" onto that basis?
As a matter of practise, there has never been any attempt to schedule venues
18-24 months out. Instead, there has been a reliance on finding meeting
hosts. This has ensured that early venue selection was not possible.
(Some folks might remember that roughly 10 years ago, Marshall and I proposed
scheme that would have chosen a standard site if no host is selected by the
cutoff.)
As noted in the current thread, early site selection permits attendee
budgeting. From the IETF side, it permits serious negotiating for site terms
and operational efficiencies when a previous site is re-used. Minneapolis has
been a useful demonstration of this latter point, I think.
By placing a priority on having hosts and/or on selecting venues to encourage
local Internet development, we place meeting operational and cost benefits as
secondary priorities.
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf