Dan York wrote: > While I agree with the sentiments of Ted and others[1], isn't this all > rather a moot point? > I would expect Ray has already signed a locked-in contract with the > hotel/resort in Dublin, correct? > Is there realistically any chance to change it? So it's probably a good thing that my query made no mention of trying to change the Dublin arrangements. I asked about decision criteria, in the hope that they can be improved. This isn't about changing Dublin, criticizing anyone, or doing anything more than improving the ranking of criteria. Every time the IETF venue is isolated, it is a logistical problem during the week. Yet that fact seems to be getting ignored -- or rather, ranked lower than other priorities. From my own view, the IETF venue should encourage attendance and interaction. Attendance is affected by convenience of access and cost. Access to less expensive hotels *that are as convenient as the primary hotel* is significant to this end. Interaction is affected by the ability to break into casual small group discussions. Having a sterile or monotonous or expensive environment works against this. Having access to a variety of convenient, alternative places works in favor of it. For those who don't care about being locked into an isolated venue, they won't mind having the IETF held among a small set of venues that do have good local logistics. They exist in various places around the world. Choose a small set and rotate among them. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf