There are too many things I need to reply to for individual replies, so here’s an omni-reply: 1. On the question of should we visit places we suspect will have poor onsite attendance - RFC 8718 has an explicit non-objective of "maximal attendance" though the reasoning given is not at all clear. 2. On the question of the diversity of the cites we visit - that’s not one of our criteria, nor can I see it becoming one as there are too many things to consider as it is and this is a lower priority than those that have a direct impact on the participant than a broader social impact. 3. On the question of RFC production times - firstly it is not the job of the LLC to manage the standards process and so it’s not appropriate for us to audit the effectiveness of meetings. Secondly, given the timescales involved and the many ups and downs in the process I suspect that would not be trustworthy data if measured on a per-meeting basis. We do ask about timescales in the annual community survey - see Q30 of [1] 4. On the question of what questions we ask in the post-meeting survey - try out the preview [2] and play with your answers 5. On the question of returning to Minneapolis - Laura has answered that, it’s too expensive or fully booked, and most hotel groups are basically franchises so a relationship with head office cannot help us jump a queue or get favourable pricing. 6. On the question of going elsewhere in Silicon Valley - we have another SF meeting booked for 2026 (another reschedule from some years ago) and are unlikely to consider the general area again for many years. 7. On the question of us recommending cheaper places or making arrangements with multiple hotels - habits and preferences are clearly changing and we increasingly find that we have arranged for many more rooms than are needed because people are finding their own accommodation, either other hotels or AirBnB equivalents, both clearly driven by the ease with which choices can be found and a selection made online. In other words, we’ve tried finding cheaper options but they weren’t used enough and so it’s no longer a good use of effort. 8. On the question of reduced fee for first-time participants - we have considered this and it has not been either ruled out or ruled in, but as some have pointed out this might not drive the intended behaviour, the financial impact is not clear, and the relative priorities of doing this compared to other fee changes are not clear. cheers Jay [1] https://ietf.co1.qualtrics.com/results/public/aWV0Zi1VUl8zT3laRG9JQWxidUkxZ0otNjM3NGQ1YWQzOWUwMjgwMDE1OWE4YzJl#/pages/Page_b5688ebf-f66a-4c96-be1f-484b9cd177fd [2] https://ietf.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/preview/previewId/edcb2c65-a06c-47ee-a432-5d0f5dd5ab6b/SV_3PHb4hNfrjyjkmW?Q_CHL=preview&Q_SurveyVersionID=current -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
