On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, John C Klensin wrote:
Ole,
In years past, when we have had a small venue or venue-connected
hotels, we've arranged contracts so that there are really two or
more "official" (even if not all "HQ") hotels, hotels with which
the IETF has contracts that cover relevant policies, Internet
access, etc.
***OLE: Yes, and we do this time as well.
We also managed to announce all of those hotels at the same time
as the HQ one, thereby alleviating some of the panic that leads
people to want to make reservations in the first hours in case
they might want to come (something I've been guilty of as my
meeting attendance pattern shifts to "decide within the month
prior to the meeting whether I really need to travel to it").
***OLE: I believe it was the intention to announce them at the
same time, but it was not possible for reasons I will let others
explain.
That is different from "overflow hotels", with which IETF/IAOC
has traditionally facilitated identification of locations and
reservation arrangements but not otherwise been involved, and
"nearby hotels" that are around and may be identified but for
which the IETF doesn't even identify a handy travel bureau.
Since you seem to be the one giving reassurances, what are the
actual Yokohama arrangements on the spectrum between "official"
and "nearby"?
***OLE: Please stand by until the announcement is made, I don't
have all the information at hand, but I do know there are plenty
of rooms at nearby hotels, at reasonable prices.
Also, and reinforcing Melinda's point that this many imply that
we should be lowering emphasis on f2f meetings, part of the
claimed value of f2f IETF meetings has always been the informal
meeting opportunities. We seem to be getting away from that as
the traditional "Bar BOF" becomes something that is formally
organized and scheduled, the Thursday evening examination of
drafts and draughts get harder to reliably schedule, and so on.
But distributing people among multiple hotels tends to make
those semi-spontaneous events harder to arrange (e.g., if
breakfasts are included in hotel rates and/or hotels don't
expect people to eat breakfast there would aren't staying there,
scheduling actual breakfast meetings can get challenging).
My experience with many IETFs (although not as many as you,
Mike, and a few others) is that, especially in the last several
years, there always seems to be something, even after one
adjusts for the tendency of the community to whine and make a
big issue out of small glitches and inconveniences. I can't
help but feel that some of them indicate that we are losing
sight of our priorities relative to effective meetings versus,
e.g., nice locations or outreach to new regions or locations.
***OLE: I would say that it mostly boils down to our MEETING
room requirements which appear to be ever-expanding. But that's
probably a discussion for another list/day.
john