On 8/29/10 1:08 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:
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.
It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them out
and doing them, plus elapsed time.
In both the netherlands and japan cases, not figuring it out was an
option... Once I saw what was available in the netherlands I simply
arrived at AMS and took the first train in the right direction.
likewise with hiroshima, figuring out whether I sould be on 08:07 hikari
or the 08:13 nozomi was way to find grained a level of detail to work
out until 07:52
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.
A good observation. It's been perplexing how many people seem to prefer
what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for the core
purpose. I think your explanation makes sense: some people go for only
a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
#Random Tag
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf