I had the same reaction to the Maastricht comparison to any of those
other cities in terms of equivalency. I added a comment in that
regards to my responses. I agree 100% that the question is pretty
useless if Maastricht is considered secondary. A survey of the number
of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
difference IMHO.
I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
and how many WGs they are presenting in. Asking folks that question
would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
Internet.
Mary.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Ray -
I started to take this survey then bounced out of it on the second page.
This comes under the heading of bad survey design.
I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and
specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking
the deck.
What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both formal and
informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of having a good
technical discussion with random people at pretty much any time of the day
or night - that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's success over
the years. (Although the marathon session for the first draft of the Host
Requirements document was probably stretching it) That generally means a
central large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel
food and drink in close proximity.
With respect to tourism, at different times in my career, I've had different
interests in the IETF. Currently, I'm down to only a few WGs that I follow
and as of the last meeting, none that I'm currently contributing to.
Considering that I'm now consulting as my main activity and paying for this
on my own dime, I expect that my ratio of tourism to attendance will be
somewhat skewed towards tourism, but wouldn't expect the IETF to cater to
that. My prime interest is still technical interaction and discussion.
With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting off an
international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto a train for 2-5
hours somewhat worrisome. I spent more time online for Maastricht trying to
research how to get to Maastricht that I did reading IDs - and even then
when I got to the Maastricht central train station, I had no luck buying a
ticket for Maastricht Raandwyck.
I live in a gateway city and would prefer to go to another gateway city -
but I realize that's not always feasible and not always the best venue.
I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to say that
air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of
what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to indicate
that on your survey.
To be honest, I don't think I'll find the output of this survey of much use
in its current form.
Mike
At 03:12 PM 8/27/2010, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All;
Do you have IETF meeting venue preferences? If so, the IAOC wants to know!
Please take this survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HPLZGJ
Thanks!
Ray
IAD
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf