Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
On 17/12/15 16:21, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hopefully "perk" is not quite the intended word, but "necessary
convenience" might serve better. Although... How many IESG breakfasts
were there in Prague?
I think 3 incl. Sunday, but with a bunch of ADs at another brekkie
thing one of the days (taking advantage of a cancelled IESG brekkie).
And, as a member of NomCom I had breakfast meetings every day of the
week in Yokohama, but no preferential treatment.
Yeah, that seemed unfairish to me too.
I agree that the I* needs to be around the meeting venue. The
Secretariat even more so.
But it wold be useful thought experiment for them all to examine how
their weeks would be different if they had a 20 minute walk each way
each day.
Actually, the end of day in the meeting hotel is often more useful
I think for bumping into I* folks after dinner. Or maybe I just
hang around bars a lot:-)
I agree on this point. I did try to stop at the bar areas in Prague to be
available to chat... However, I really did enjoy my 20 minute walk each way.
This made sure that I saw the light of day and got a tiny bit of exercise.
For BA, my situation will be different and I plan to stay at the Hilton. My
reason is not meetings, but making sure my son-to-be will be able to eat.
We may want to think about preference and special requests that may be
important for some attendees and give them a way to place advance requests if
they have a special need for accommodations.
Best regards,
Kathleen
S
Adrian
First meeting for IAB/IESG members during IETF week is 8am,
possibly earlier.
My first meeting I have to be at is 9am on some days of the week.
Sure, I might arrange a breakfast meeting etc. But there is a big
difference between a meeting I arrange at my convenience where I
expect four or five people to be at and one that is set by others
and will have two dozen people discussing something that is complex
and not necessarily my stuff.
I am all for greater openness and accountability in IETF. But the
starting point for that would be recognizing that we do actually
have a membership and officeholders should be accountable to it
rather than petty attempts to strip officeholders of the only perk
they get for doing the jobs.