On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:38:57PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Then go from "no clash" to "minimal clash".
I look forward to the mailing list discussions in which we debate the
relative importance of different clashing events. It will provide a
welcome change in topic: we can move from "here is how I want to
optimise IETF meetings" to "here are the most important other meetings
to me."
As I understand it (and I think someone already said this upthread),
the point of the early date selection is that the IETF sets its dates
first, and then others have to/may schedule around it. Given that we
all of us apparently cannot even agree to disagree about the
definition of "secondary" and "primary" airline hubs, what are the
chances we'll be able to pick meeting dates after others have picked
theirs?
The hard truth is that arranging a meeting for over a thousand picky,
cheap geeks from all over the world is a very hard problem. Simple
answers like voting systems will not result in happy people anyway
(please look up "Kenneth Arrow" before you decide I'm wrong), and so
we have to fall back on trusting the people we have selected, via the
NomCom, to do this job. For my part, I think they're all either
insane or saints: that is just a thankless task, for which one
inevitably gets coated in rotten fruit.
People keep demanding more openness, but anyone who has ever negotated
a contract ought to know perfectly well that such negotiations don't
happen in the open; and that the details of failed negotiations end up
secret, too, because neither party wants to give away their positions.
The demands that the IAOC open that up are, in fact, a demand that
prices go _up_, since the other side of the negotiation would be in a
position to understand negotiating strategies. Every unusual issue
for every IETF venue results in this sort of second-guessing of the
IAOC, and I think it's silly. (But if you really think you can do
better, I understand there's an IAOC slot up for consideration by the
NomCom this year.)
Indeed, rather than asking how we can optimise the meeting location
for people who live at 1234 Pine Street, Springfield, USA, why don't
we ask why we are having three meetings a year? I hear there's
something called the Internet. Do we really need _everybody_ to get
together in one place so often? Especially given that we have such a
globally dispersed population that we now have to trek all over the
globe for meetings? Maybe we need to have more interim virtual
meetings, and fewer in-person meetings.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf