On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.
No, this is actually regardless of what we prioritize for, assuming we
want major venues. The major venues of the world are not sitting
around waiting for us to call and book with them on our fixed dates.
Availability is a major issue. Pick ANY major city in the world which
would satisfy your other requirements and see how far you get.
That's why we ended up in Hiroshima and not Tokyo (or Yokohama). I
have a proposed fix which involves getting commitments from host (or
sponsors or insert entitity here) many years in advance, but even that
will take time to have an impact on reality.
(Note that the fixed dates was community consensus and I think most
folks agree that it is a good thing, other events tend to plan around
us.)
To assert that this means we can't meet the really important
requirements even with a model change is pretty odd, Ole.
I did not say that, see above.
Note that I am *still* very much in favor of having some small set of
regular venues and I do not consider the IETF an opportunity to
explore new places in the world (not much time to do that anyway
during IETF week), but having worked on this for a while I know what
the constraints are. It doesn't mean things can't change, but it
probably means things cannot change overnight as some comments seem
to have implied.
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf