On 25/08/2011 01:03, geoff wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:28 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
1) We don't have to go to any particular location. There has been an
assumption made by people in this discussion that sometimes when we pick
locations with particularly expensive hotels, we'll get particularly
expensive meetings. That's great except that we were the ones who chose
to go to those locations.
If we can't meet our cost targets at a location, go somewhere else.
Sam makes a really good point here. We didn't have to go to Taipei.
For some reason we chose to go to Taipei.
Not quite. There is a requirement to have meetings all over the world,
in a ratio of 1:1:1 for Europe, North America and Asia. Considering
that we have to go to Asia, Taipei looks like a sensible choice: it
is in the middle of the region, it well connected, and it is one of
the bigger economies in the region.
I have a feeling that if we dropped this requirement and went for a
0:3:0 schedule because it is much cheaper for the US participants to
go to M'polis 3 times/year, somebody else would complain.
The hotel (and
host if there was on) could/should have been told -
sorry too expensive.
I've lost track what has been officially announced, but in one of the
future years, the 1:1:1 requirement has been dropped as there was no
suitable venue in one of the areas.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
http://www.uijterwaal.nl
Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
(John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf