On 8/7/2010 6:03 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I'd really rather the IETF go places where the ability to "get work done"
is the primary consideration.
To me, that's the only consideration apart from being open and spreading the
travel pain among our participants.
Every time this topic comes up, in response to concerns about a recent venue, we
are ultimately told that host constraints dictated the choice. As a practical
matter for the last 20 years, the preferences of the host have been given higher
priority than site utility/convenience/cost for the folks doing the work.
The rationale that has been offered has always been cost. This is the
'localized' cost for specific resources, without attending to potentially
counter-balancing cost of attendee aggregate time and expensess. The easy
portion of assessing aggregate cost is extra travel time and cost to get to the
venue, when it is not located at a major International hub. For more isolated
venues, such as Dublin and Maastricht, there is also the daily cost to get to
local resources such as restaurants and a wider range of lodging.
This thread has had several people again point out that a fixed set of sites
solves these issues, along with assuring a much higher level of predictability
to core services, such as connectivity.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf