On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Geoff Mulligan <geoff(_dot_)ietf(_at_)mulligan(_dot_)com> writes:
Maybe the majority doesn't care one way or the other - they will just go
wherever the meetings are held in which case:
let's make them easy to get to
cheap
decent food
one roof (with other hotels near-by)
cheap
and easy to get to
Having watched this debate play out in multiple venues (ICANN goes all
around the world 3x a year as well) over multiple years, I've come to
the following main conclusion:
1) you can't please all the people all the time, and there will be
griping no matter what we do. We've got 1200 attendees. That's a lot
of folk who have differing ideas of what is important.
+lots
And the folk who are happy with the status quo / apathetic / just glad that
they don't have to choose locations are likely to be silent, so the tone of the
conversation is very negative.
I probably fall into the apathetic / glad it's not me category -- I care about:
1: Being able to meet and get work done.
2: Having a hotel really close / attached to the venue (so I can drop my bag
off between sessions and dinner).
3: Having sort of food somewhere nearby.
I view the meeting as work time, not vacation time -- if we meet in a resort in
the Alps or a hotel in New Jersey, it's all the same to me (and, I suspect, to
many) and so I haven't been very vocal on this thread...
2) There is no perfect solution. There are too many variables, not all
of which are known in advance. And, everyone weighs various factors
differently. Convenience of travel, for instance, is very different
for US-based folk vs. Chinese and Australians.
3) The absolutely most important thing to get right is a meeting venue
that works for getting work done. In my mind, the really key things
here are:
a) everyone can (easily) walk to the meeting site (this facilitates
mingling, including at the bar)
b) there is ample local food within walking distance (again for
mingling/meetings)
c) proper facilities (adequate meeting room, wireless, range of room
rate options, and yes, I suppose cookies, etc.)
If you get the above right, the other inconveniences don't matter
(except maybe visa hassles). Or more precisely, folk can (and just
should) deal with it.
100% agree.
Seriously, taking one extra plane hop (or gasp! riding a train!) is
just noise, when talking about a meeting that lasts 5+ solid days.
I'd much rather take an extra hop to get to a meeting venue that works
well, then save a few hours travel time to reach a venue that doesn't
have places to eat.
Etc.
Hub cities are no panacea. I too like Minneapolis. As a venue, it
meets the key IETF needs as better than most places we've visited. It
has good airline connectivity (not perfect, but good). It meets the
key criteria above. You can also walk everywhere underground in the
winter, so the argument that it's "too cold" seems specious. Etc.
But does everyone like Minneapolis? Apparently not. I'm told that the
IAOC has stopped going there because they were getting too many
complaints. People do get tired of going to the same places, even if a
location works.
I've concluded that going to new places is better than hubs. Even
though I rarely take vacation in conjunction with meetings, getting
1/2 a day to sight see or even being able to walk into town for dinner
in a new location is a positive thing over being at the same places
too often.
And I've concluded that the IAOC have a crappy job to do and that folk like to
kvetch.
If they found a private Caribbean island with free flights and a 5 star resort
for $10USD per night, *someone* would complain that the sand was too hot and
the falling coconuts were a hazard...
W
Thomas
_______________________________________________
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