> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: 09 May 2022 19:54 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Registration open for IETF 114 > > On 5/9/22 13:31, Alexa Morris wrote: > > > You're correct that pre-pandemic the IETF usually contracted with one > > or two additional local properties. Typically this was done to provide > > a less expensive alternative to the main IETF venue. However in more > > recent years we observed that these alternative venues were > > poorly-utilized and it was decided that the very minimal number of > > bookings did not justify the substantial amount of administrative > > effort required, except in those cases where the main room block was > > either very expensive, or insufficient in size. > > > > Happily, the IETF 114 meeting venue (Sheraton Philadelphia Downtown) > > has offered the IETF a very reasonable rate ($190 USD) so we expect > > that most people will opt to stay there, and accordingly we have a > > sizable room block. > > This is not only extremely unreasonable, it's insulting to the very > notion of IETF and offensive to many of those who aren't funded by Big > Companies. It's appalling. Recently when booking flights, airport parking, hotels, etc, it feels like there has been quite a steep price inflation since before Covid. I had no concrete data to back this up, but my assumption was that this inflation was due to these businesses trying to claw back losses or cover loans that they have had to take out over the last couple of years to stay afloat. It might also be related to current high rate of energy costs and knock-on effects on inflation. I was not involved in the venue decision in anyway but have confidence that those responsible will have put in considerable effort in finding suitable venues, negotiating on price/contracts etc, according to the process set out in BCP 226. I.e., it feels to me that those responsible for selecting venues have gone to considerable effort to ensure community consensus on the factors that feed in the venue selection. > > Or maybe this is yet another attempt of IETF leadership to impose their > prejudiced version of "professionalism" ? I'm not sure about this, other than to say that I personally don't see any drive towards any version of professionalism. What I *do* see in terms of folks who I interact with in IETF leadership positions are: - people who care deeply about the IETF both as an organization *and* as a community and want it to continue to be successful and be a place where folks *want* to participant and want to bring new work to. - people who care deeply about the Internet, believe that it is a force for good, want it to continue to be great or get even better. - people who want to make participation better through easier authoring tools and reviewing processes with the goal of making it easier to write and review internet drafts (https://authors.ietf.org/). - people who want to increase participation in the IETF and increase diversity in both the organization and leadership positions. - people who end up putting in a lot of time and energy both trying to improve the IETF and to keep it running smoothly (which takes a lot of work by a lot of people). - people who try hard to consult with the community on important discussions and take on community feedback in the decisions that are made (even when it can be very time consuming). The next Nomcom cycle will soon be upon us, and I would encourage folks to start thinking now about whether they could apply for leadership positions. It can be quite a lot of work at times but personally I have also found it to be very rewarding and hence encourage others to also consider standing, or helping with doc shepherding, volunteering to be a WG chair, helping with tools, helping with Emodir, signing up as a directorate reviewer, etc ... Regards, Rob > > Keith > >
