At 9:24 AM -0500 1/12/16, John C Klensin wrote:
But that gets back to an example of the same old set of
tradeoffs --and my desire that those involved in the process be
a lot more transparent about it. Your comment above is
reasonable and even obvious. But there are cities (apparently
including Buenos Aires) where there are approximately zero
hotels that have enough rooms to give us an 800 or 900 room
block.
So, would you propose a hard rule of "stop considering any city
unless we could got a room block of at least N rooms", with N
somewhere in the range of 800 or 900? Unlike the variety of
more subjective rules, it would be very clear and easy to
interpret. My assumption about IETF 95 is that, despite
understanding and considering the disadvantages of smaller
hotels, the decision-makers believed they had a sufficient "go
to Buenos Aires" mandate to override hotel or room block size
considerations. I presume that, for the future, we could change
that if we had consensus that, e.g., minimum room block size was
a firm requirement.
I'm not fond of hard rules, and would be fine if we had some clear
information as to why this city was chosen despite the room block
issue. Which of course is an example of your calls for transparency.
Maybe a semi-rigid rule that can be overridden with good cause (sort
of a SHOULD rather than a MUST)?
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Secrecy is as essential to Intelligence as vestments and
incense to a Mass, or darkness to a Spiritualist seance, and
must at all costs be maintained, quite irrespective of whether
or not it serves any purpose. --Malcolm Muggeridge