RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

I made always good experiences with meeting venues in the downtown of hub 
cities with good flight connections.
As a European for me the east coast of North America is better than the west 
coast.

So far my experience was very good with following meeting locations and would 
agree for a repetition: 
Vancouver, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Paris, London, Stockholm and 
even Minneapolis (brrr).

Bad experiences were: Dublin (60 min. as a sum to drive for a dinner), 
Maastricht (60 min. as a sum to walk for a dinner), Anaheim (far away from the 
LA airport)

Why don't we actually plan a meeting in Boston, New York, Madrid, or Lisbon?

Cheers, 
Mehmet 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of ext Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 5:06 AM
> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > enough merely to have excellent staff.  We need to go back to the
> > better places and benefit from the learning curve.  This doesn't
> > mean "no new venues" but it means fewer.
> As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want to return
> to?  I get your argument in principle, but it seems to me that there
> has been quite a lot of complaining in the past.  The one factor that
> seems to me most likely to reduce complaints -- weather -- is
> evidently beyond the Secretariat's or IAOC's control.
>
> People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver, elevators
> notwithstanding.  We're going to do that.  (I don't understand why the
> previous Vencouver venue was less desirable -- to me, these venues
> were very similar, and not very far apart.  I note, however, that the
> previous two Vancouver visits were near the end of the year, when it
> rains all the time in Vancouver.)
>
> People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I presume
> it's out.
>
> Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel expense
> in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
> Should we try to return there?
>
> People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although
> afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue.  I note that
> the weather was great.  Should we try to return?
>
> I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in 2011, which
> was striking to me because very little seemed different to me compared
> to our first visit there.  Perhaps this is evidence of the "tuning"
> you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance).
> But I note the weather was excellent.
>
> Beijing?  I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought that was
> an example of a terrible location, but many people seemed happy with
> it)?  Hiroshima?  Stockholm?  San Francisco (we thought the crime at
> Paris was bad, yet didn't complain about being smack up against the
> Tenderloin)?  Or there's the old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we
> could do it in March.  The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of
> people.  Philadelphia, people complained about expense.  Chicago, too
> (combined with hotel renovations).
>
> That gets us back through 2007.  Which of the venues do you think we
> should return to, to which we already haven't returned or planned to
> return?  And why?
>
> For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to any of
> those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of them except
> Hiroshima, which I missed due to other commitments.  That includes
> both Maastricht and Dublin, which were both apparently trials for
> large numbers of others.
>
> Best,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com