--On Monday, August 25, 2014 16:51 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
I'm responding this thread a bit late, because… erm… I
was on vacation :-)
First, I understand what prompted John's initial e-mail on
this topic. And I agreed that we need to be careful when we
speak about our meetings and associated events and options
offered by hotel or anyone else. However, in this case I think
you reacted on something that in reality was a detail.
I did try to stay focused on that detail -- Ray's particular
phrasing and explanation in his announcement and the inference
that people might draw from it that tourism opportunities had
become an important aspect of our negotiations about sites and
conditions. Since people reacted on the basis of some more
general issues, I obviously was not focused enough in my note
and intent even though I'm also concerned with those more
general issues. Apologies to anyone I confused.
I do think that the issues of where we plan meetings, the
criteria used, and how maximizing attendance among those who are
able and willing to do work and are not exclusively vendor or
institutionally sponsored trades off against attempts to build
diversity by going to more places deserve discussion, but I
don't know a good way to have that discussion (Dave Crocker's
comments on the subject, most of which I think are right on
target, notwithstanding).
And
looking at industry and academia events in general, I
generally think that IETF events come with less material from
the local tourist bureau, organised tours, and the like.
I tend to dislike "it could be worse" comparisons and assume
that is not what you intended. However, if one examines
standards bodies (rather than the broader, and slightly
non-overlapping, categories above) our "companion" efforts
probably put us above the average for associated tour activities
_except_ for those in which the meeting sponsor picks up almost
all costs other than individual hotel rooms and meals (and even
some of the meal costs).
And
that's a good thing. Lets keep it that way, it is not our
business. But I do not mind some information about tourist
attractions, hotel stay extensions, spouse activities, and the
like being available.
I don't either, as long as those don't become part of the
negotiations in ways that can increase costs (financial or
otherwise) to either individuals or the community in other
areas. I am also concerned that the number of collateral
activities we are encouraging may increase the space and other
facilities requirements for IETF meetings, thereby restricting
the range of places we can meet. That concern may be entirely
unjustified (I don't know enough about either our requirements
or hotel profiles these days) but would find it interesting if
the IAOC added at least a count of the number of auxiliary
meeting rooms (IAB, IESG, IAOC, Nomcom, ISOC, etc.) we need and
perhaps how they are being paid for to its reports.
Again, the issue that promoted my earlier note was not the
announcement, it was the possible implications --both to us and
to impressions that might be created-- of "we asked... early in
the negotiations". I was looking for a simple clarification
that would put at least those impressions to rest.
I also wanted to assure everyone that neither the IAOC or the
meeting committee makes meeting site selections based on their
vacation preferences. Of course not. We take our task very
seriously, and try to do what is best for the IETF. [And if we
didn't, I can also assure you that we'd be meeting far
more often where there is less sunshine and more snow :-) ]
Speaking personally, I'd be happy with more of those "less
sunshine and more snow" locations, especially when they are also
associated with multiple local active IETF participants as well
as meeting whatever other substantive criteria exist at the time.
...
Finally, finding good meeting sites that satisfy all
requirements is not easy. I wouldn't mind someone walking up
to the IAOC right now and letting us know how to arrange a
meeting in Asia with all the cost, sponsorship, and other
components solved for us :-)
Certainly. But I also think it would be useful for the IAOC (or
the meetings committee) to be a little bit more open with the
community about what the "all requirements" are and how they are
generally prioritized. It would even be helpful for the
community to understand which of those requirements are most
often causing locations to be excluded (or to exclude
themselves) because they cannot be met and, again following Dave
Crocker's lead, which sets of participant preferences and needs
are being optimized. If nothing else, a little more clarity and
openness about those topics might head off at least a few
discussions like this one.
best,
john