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.
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: ---------------
The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectability to uninformed opinion. --John Lawton
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf