Re: Hotel situation

On 1/5/2016 4:44 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> I've often wondered if when polls were taken if any weight was given to
> active or long term contributors.
Thanks for raising this.  The surveys should, indeed, be tailored to 
produce more useful information, with more emphasis on pragmatics.
The IETF meeting has a core of regular participants.  They dominate the 
surveys we currently do.  They are well-funded and well-traveled.
To be serious about efforts an inclusiveness, venues should be easy, 
quick and cheap to get to and cheap to stay in.
The surveys should primarily target folk who are /not/ guaranteed to 
attend but who are nonetheless desirable attendees.
This requires better sampling -- don't just query current attendees -- 
and better questions -- don't just ask about general preferences for a 
particular city.
Our current sampling method produces a tourism focus.

Jari's comment:

> On 1/4/2016 12:27 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > Out of the last fifteen meetings:
> >
> > Yokohama, Prague, Dallas, Honolulu, Toronto, London, Vancouver,
> > Berlin, Orlando, Atlanta, Vancouver, Paris, Taipei, Quebec,
> > Praque, Beijing
> >
> > I count only two (Honolulu and Orlando) that were clearly touristy
> > destinations.
demonstrates some of the problem we have in considering cities 
carefully.  The reality is that most of those venues are highly popular 
tourist destination, especially in summer.
Four of them are listed as among the top 20 in one survey:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2014/07/31/the-20-most-popular-cities-in-the-world-to-visit-in-2014/

Three of them, in another:

     http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Destinations


When we travel to such places during the height of their tourism season, 
we encounter bigger crowds and higher prices, both in transit and in 
staying.
By mostly querying people who are well-funded, well-traveled, regular 
attendees, we invite the influence on 'pleasure' to their travel 
preferences.  That is, tourism.  They are going to attend no matter 
what, so their expectation of actually enjoying the venue is pretty much 
the only distinguishing characteristic influencing their responses, 
especially since we do not provide additional, distinguishing 
information in the query.
Instead, we should query potential /additional/ or /infrequent/ 
attendees who are showing up on discussion lists already and who are not 
well-funded.
The form of the surveys also should be different.  Simply asking for 
basic preferences about specific cities elicits a response about the 
appeal of the city, not about the pragmatics of going there.
So the surveys should begin by priming the context by asking general, 
policy-related questions about venue factors, such as travel price and 
travel time and venue costs (including food) and venue convenience 
(isolated resort versus resource-rich urban environments).
After that it should ask about specific locations but should include 
information about each place's costs and convenience.
And it should not just ask about preference.  It should ask about 
attendance likelihood.  That is, cast the question so as to elicit a 
mild form of commitment.  People answer such questions differently than 
open-ended preferences questions.
d/



--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net