Ole,
Perspective appreciated. I don't intend to turn this into a
long discussion because I think that would be a waste of time,
but a few observations inline below.
--On Friday, August 22, 2014 12:16 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
<olejacobsen(_at_)me(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
John,
Let me suggest a different perspective: The IETF has in recent
times tried hard to become more "inclusive" and friendlier to
those who participate (ref: the "diversity" discussion) and
their partners and families. We have a companion program now,
for example. It has been suggested that we help coordinate
childcare, formally or informally, too.
Personal opinion: I think those efforts are wonderful. I also
think that they slip into poor optimization and perhaps even bad
judgment when they have significant negative impact on the
non-"leadership" people who actually get the work done. Some of
those boundaries are widely understood and accepted. For
example, despite their potential advantages for diversity and
increased exposure, we don't go places where we can't get good
Internet connectivity. I suggest that adding people who might
contribute in the future is a good idea as long as it doesn't
significantly disadvantage those who have a demonstrated track
record of active participation and contributions.
Given the amount of time each active IETFer spends away from
home, is it really that unreasonable for the IAOC to mention
some "opportunities" in those rather rare instances when we
actually do end up in a clearly identified vacation
destination?
I am also fairly certain that the offer Ray mentioned is just
something the Hilton Group added as a bonus and not something
he fought long an hard for :-)
Ah, but it was exactly that part of Ray's note that struck me
and caused the comment. Had he said "late in contract
negotiations, the Hilton Group mentioned that they had other
properties in Hawaii and would offer a discounted rate to any of
our registrants who wanted to book rooms in one of them before
or after IETT", I would have said "neat" to myself and not said
a thing on-list. What his note said differed from that in two
respects. Instead, he wrote "When we were first contracting
with the Hilton for IETF 91 the Hilton was asked about the
possibility...". In other words, this came at the beginning of
the negotiation and _we_ asked _them_. I think that leads a
reasonable person to believe that this was part of the
negotiation and that the "deal" might have even had an impact on
the rates and conditions we got at the Hawaiian Village.
Probably the latter isn't true. But it has a bit of a bad odor,
especially for those of us who will probably not be at IETF 91
because the costs are too hard to justify.
And just for the record: Finding suitable venues for a group
as large as the IETF with its long list of requirements is NOT
an easy task.
Ole
IAOC Meetings Committee Chair
I've always assumed that. I also assume that not all of the
"requirements" can be satisfied and that tradeoffs are needed.
I am only questioning whether the tradeoffs are right when there
is an appearance that resort locations and vacation
opportunities are being given more priority than keeping overall
attendee costs as low as possible given other criteria.
Gaving been in situations in which the perception of "social/
party convention", "boggle", or "vacation opportunity" meeting
selections can have negative effects on meeting support for
years after the actual incident (even when arrangements already
made result in no measurable effect on _that_ meeting), I'm
actually more worried about the perceptions than the reality.
If, for example, I were an executive with budget responsibility
in a company that had just announced another few thousand
layoffs, I'd be looking for ways to demonstrate that I was
scrutinizing expenses carefully and cutting anything that
someone elsewhere in the food chain might construe as wasteful,
Ray's phrasing would push me very hard in the direction of
tightening IETF travel funds in the next budget cycle(s).
best,
john