I'm sure the meeting could at least in theory have been organized in a
place with better connections. Whether that would have been possible in
practice is another matter. From my perspective the grounds for the
decision -- as indicated here by the IAOC folk -- seemed reasonable.
For some perspective, here are the door to door travel times for some of
my recent and upcoming IETF and IESG trips:
Maastricht: 7 hours (using 2.5h train route provided by ns.nl and
similar times to get to/from train as I did with Amsterdam recently)
Stockholm: 3.5 hours
Amsterdam (IESG retreat): 5 hours (you have to take a train to city center)
San Francisco: 20 hours
Minneapolis: 22 hours (2 stops; delay and lost flight in ORD)
Dublin: 9 hours (there was no suitable direct flight and then the
traffic on site was pretty bad)
New York (IESG retreat): 12 hours
Philadelphia: 16 hours (via NYC and then by car; excluding the time
spent resting in a NYC hotel and the time spent skiing on the way to
Philly :-)
Vancouver: 18 hours
Prague: 7.5 hours (no direct flight, but Internet worked well at MUC)
San Diego: 23 hours (I think; I had no record left)
As you can see, Maastricht is not too bad compared to the others.
Clearly, other things being equal Amsterdam would have been easier to
get to. But Maastricht would still fare better than Dublin or Prague did
for me. Stockholm will be a very short trip. Unless I join the folk who
go there by sailing :-)
Also, note that Schiphol is a major airline hub. You'll far more likely
to find a direct flight there from where you live (cf. to Prague,
Stockholm, San Diego, Philadelphia, etc). You do need a second leg in
your journey and this time its going to be on a train, not on an airplane.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf