Henk,
A few responses inline below [MB].
Regards,
Mary.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Henk Uijterwaal
<henk(_dot_)uijterwaal(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>wrote:
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.
[MB] I've not seen a single person advocate a 0:3:0 schedule and it's only
less cheaper for all participants (not just US) because the hotel rates are
extremely reasonable (<$150 as I recall). It is definitely less expensive
for the vast majority of participants than NA cities like Quebec City and
San Francisco that travel by air. BUT, I think you are missing what we are
saying overall - the major reasons some of us prefer Minneapolis is because
it meets what some of us have been saying over and over as far a key factors
for meetings:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68656.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68727.html
The expense factor is just one other factor that is higher priority for some
folks than others and certainly shouldn't be ignored in venue selection, but
I don't think there is an accurate way to judge the overall expense burden
for attendees as it is not at all based on which continent the meeting is
held. My expenses for Prague, Quebec City and Beijing were nearly the
same: Prague was $500 less than QC and Beijing - cost for QC and Beijing was
the same!!! [/MB]
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.
[MB] I think it's next year that is the exception as we will be in both
Vancouver and Atlanta - although, I would think the West Coast and East
Coast locations ensures that a bit more of the travel burden is shared. I
think what some folks miss is that West Coast meetings in NA are almost as
far away as Western Europe for folks in the Eastern US, so it's really not
at all reasonable to assume that folks in the US have an easier travel
burden only if the meetings are NA. And, you ought to consider that when the
meetings are in the US, the majority of us travel significantly further to
get to meetings than folks in Europe do to get to meetings in Europe. [/MB]
[MB] So, it's really silly for folks to be assuming that some of us want all
meetings in NA because it's just so much easier and cheaper for us.[/MB]
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf