On 26/08/2011 16:48, Mary Barnes wrote:
[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
I like Minneapolis as meeting location too, assuming that the visa troubles we
had there last time are solved, and I'd be happy to make it the default location
for US meetings.
However, we have said that we want to meet all over the planet. That means that
we have to go elsewhere somewhere, even if there is a good and cheaper
meeting location available elsewhere, but in the wrong region. The same goes
for the meeting weeks, if a good hotel option isn't available in a meeting week
but is available a week or so earlier/later, then under the present rules,
it has to be discarded.
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