I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American
meeting. There is a reasonable convenience factor in terms of nearby
hotels, restuarants and food markets (there's an excellent one just a couple
blocks from the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that folks
preferred Quebec City, which suggests that the majority of folks don't favor
the idea of returning to the same city. Having had a meeting previously in
Quebec City, I personally think overall Vancouver is a far better choice.
The travel options from DFW (3rd busiest airport in the world) to Quebec
City are not so great. I likely will rent a car in a more easily reachable
city and drive.
Mary.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins
<spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org>wrote:
I'm sure other people remember this, but ...
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying
a new venue is a lot of work.
One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save
money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to
quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis?
My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to
problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other
considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People
complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly.
So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I
suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps "Vancouver" - we've
been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel
right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was
raising).
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf