Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)

Hi Fred,
thank you for sharing the idea. Thank you for being polite to Prague 
(having ietf to Prague needs extra effort from my friends and me, so it 
is not personal benefit, you can imagine :-) ).
Your proposal seems to be fine to me, but if we set too many rules, we 
may find ourselves in the trap of numbers/rules (like distance from 
overflow hotel to primary hotel has to not be considered same - weather, 
safety, taxi availability, public transport has to be considered, and I 
believe they are). Looking for a good South/Latin America place is great.
One generic rule should be no more than new venue per year (two 
incumbent locations).
I'm not too in the hotel business, but first time in PRG everything just 
worked if scouting team came with Hilton representative from US. Before 
that happened, they almost overlooked us trying to get in with the 
fiber. After this visit, everything worked smoothly. So may the contract 
be with the hotel chain (instead of specific hotel) - if this works?
I see and really appreciate the work IAOC and AMS and volunteers put 
into meeting organization. I'm helping here in Prague and it is hard, 
and there are still some cultural misunderstandings.
I'm little bit disappointed by seeing notorious complaints about "we 
can't fit into the same hotel" or "walking distance is too long" or 
"hotel is expensive" or "I need a visa to visit that country" ...
BTW my dream is we have a kind of immersive remote participation, we are 
not there yet (in our laboratory environment, too).
            With kind regards
                    Michal Krsek

P.S: From my personal experience - it is great if there is a group of 
local volunteers helping (seemed to me that japanese team did very good 
work).
On 18.12.2015 22:31, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Let me ask a question. I'm on the IAOC Meetings committee, which is an advisory 
> committee that does some research (with AMS) and makes a recommendation to Ray, 
> which he then takes to the IAOC. The IAOC sometimes agrees with us and 
> sometimes doesn't. You will have just seen a note from Ray on this mailer 
> detailing the IAOC's objectives in meeting planning; our committee, with strong 
> involvement from AMS, does the investigative legwork to try to achieve those.
>
> Right now, I am suggesting a model to Ray, based on a proposal that we have 
> seen that would build a multi-meeting contract with a certain hotel. As with 
> most business, matters, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss a contract 
> below a certain level of detail. But in general terms, this proposal comes from 
> a hotel that we have met in multiple times, had successful meetings, and as far 
> as we know have met the objectives Ray outlined. We have list of places we have 
> met in in which that wasn't true for one reason or another; we also have a set 
> of locations that have worked better than the average, and done so on multiple 
> occasions. Some of these are in Asia, some are in Europe, and some are in North 
> America. Of probable interest to you: one of the sites I think mostly works is 
> in Prague.
>
> What I am suggesting to the IAOC is that, over the coming 9 years (27 meetings), we meet 
> 9 times in Asia (and maybe that includes ANZ), 9 times in Europe (and maybe that includes 
> Africa), and 9 times in the Americas. Of those, I am suggesting that we meet 3 of the 9 
> Asian times in a particular hotel that has worked well for us in that part of the world, 
> 6 of the 9 European times in two hotels that have worked well for us in Europe, and in 9 
> of the 9 "Americas" times, meet in 3 hotels that have worked well for us in the 
> past in the US and Canada. Our world tour would begin to have aspects of a rotation. For 
> that to happen, I am suggesting that we ask these specific locations whether they, too, 
> would be interested in a multi-meeting contract, and to propose terms for such meetings.
>
> Folks from Latin America (e.g., South and Central, generally spanish-speaking 
> and portuguese-speaking) will object on the grounds that they would like to be 
> included in the rotation. I can respond to that in a couple of ways, one of 
> which is that I honestly don't expect to get proposals for 3 meetings in 9 
> years from each of the 3 North American hotels on my little list. Also, we can 
> probably expect a little flexibility in contracting that would allow us to 
> insert a Latin American location by moving one of the venues out a little bit. 
> I think the problem is solvable.
>
> What this does is give us a set of locations, for as many as 18 of the coming 
> 27 meetings, that we know work for the IETF and its purposes, because they have 
> in the past. It also gives us at least 9 of the coming 27 meetings in which we 
> can explore locations such as you advocate.
>
> What will be the problems with placing those meetings? North America is frankly 
> not too hard. Europe takes a little more effort, especially in finding a 
> suitable host. Asia/ANZ - we put a lot of effort into that. The locations that 
> can offer us the number of bedrooms and breakout rooms we need, can honestly 
> discuss having 1500 people walk out of a meeting at 11:30 and return by 13:00, 
> and are near major hub or regional airports in Asia is a little thin, and where 
> we find them, they are expensive.
>
> Let me ask, since you clearly have opinions on such matters - what would you 
> think of such an arrangement? What am I missing in such a proposal?