Hi Peter,
At 11:18 08-08-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
If we discussed protocols the way we discuss venue sites, all would be
lost. "Oh, this feature works great for me, therefore let's include it
in the spec."
That's how protocols are discussed. :-)
Perhaps we might consider ending these interminable venue discussions
and just complain three times a year when we visit a place that the IAOC
has selected?
Here's a quick snapshot.
Quebec has been in the exact same location for over 400 years. The city
has historic monuments which are insulting to the Americans who failed
to capture the city in 1775. [1]
Brand-new conference centre, canonical hotel is a Hilton, and
boy can I show you some bars... [2]
Nothing is "a reasonable walk" when the average temperature is 32 C.
At least not for the "average" IETF attendee. [3]
You'd be eligible to vote if you'd attended an IETF anytime within the past,
say, 2 years - or if you were willing to commit to attending the one you vote
on if it wins. [4]
There are a host of reasons that voting is a stupid decision making
process. I
thought we knew that. [5]
Now, we should maybe calibrate that in something other than USD (maybe in
milligrams of gold, or the Economist's Bic Mac index) and also find an
independent source on hotel price inflation. [6]
According to the stats, since IETF-1, there have been 6 IETF meetings in
Minneapolis. Every one of them had significantly lower number of
participants
than the meeting before and after them... except IETF-44 which was
lower than
IETF-43 but about the same as IETF-45, but IETF-45 was in Oslo, Norway, and
IETF-46 went back up to higher levels again. [7]
Maastricht Bans Cannabis Coffee-Shop Tourists [8]
The social was held at an abbey that had wonderful dark beer in 1
litre steins.
I discovered that it's best to drink only one, if flying home at
30,000 feet the
next day. [9]
Obviously, not enough Canadians from outside Toronto were asked.
Everyone in the country loves to hate Toronto. [10]
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg66962.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68326.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68330.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68655.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68681.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68682.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68729.html
8. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69714.html
9. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70647.html
10. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70653.html