On Tue, 26 May 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> It just doesn't make sense to me to meet in places that are that hard to
> reach. I've skipped San Diego for exactly this reason in the past and I'm not
> sure I'll be going to Hiroshima.
Neither are hard to reach, that's just your own definition.
>
> The fact that there is very little information coming out about how this
> decision was reached and some of it has been of questionable quality ("MAYBE 3
> venues big enough", I listed 4 so with Maastricht that's 5; "reason for
> meeting during European holiday season lost in the mists of time") doesn't
> help.
You are either deliberately distorting what was said or you didn't
understand it. Whether there are 3, 4 or 5 event venues that YOU think
might be suitable isn't relevant. The availability of said venues,
nearby hotels, cost, network-ability and so are the factors that have
to be considered. I hope you understand that selecting a venue takes
more than 5 minutes with Google.
As for "lost in the mist of time", I think Fred explained the sequence
of events that led to the current schedule, and let's not forgot the
STRONG desire from the IETF community to have events that don't clash
with other meetings and that can be planned for more than 6 months
out. Besides, you haven't offered a single reason why moving the
meeting back to say June would be benefitial. You have theories about
availability, that's all.
Ole
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf