On 9/14/2010 9:02 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Maastricht suffered an impressive variety of problems. Worse, some of those
problems have become a recurring pattern. As examples, we have had a
significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major
transportation hubs and/or were distant from "local" resources such as the
usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like.
...
Of these I can name only Dublin as falling into the category which you
class as a pattern.
(what happened to Anaheim?)
Apparently you only saw the reference to problems /at/ the venue and not the
reference to remoteness of the venue. And apparently you didn't see the 'as
examples'. By my own count, 2-3 of the other sites qualified for the problem list.
We seem to be averaging at least one meeting a year that is remote or has
significant problems.
Please keep in mind that we have several "non-negotiable" requirements
for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on
our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the
meeting model won't necessarily change that reality.
As long as the prioritization of requirements is kept the way it is, yes, we
will regularly have these sorts of constraints on our choices.
To assert that this means we can't meet the really important requirements even
with a model change is pretty odd, Ole.
d/
ps. Some of us, including Ole and me, have expressed our views overly much and
overly strongly. The question, then, is where the rest of the community lands
on this issue?
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf