On 8/8/10 5:41 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Just to give a counterpoint, Maastricht was incredibly productive. > Perhaps you didn't see clusters of people at the conference centre, > but there were plenty of groups going for walks, going out to dinner, > and having interesting discussions. > > I don't subscribe to the notion that shutting everyone into a > confererence centre-cum-campus with all amenities onsite (and a > corresponding dearth of other options, e.g. Minneapolis or Anaheim) > is going to lead to higher productivity. I''m inclined to argee, and I the the experience in vienna was relatively similar, that said, I also had at least three breakfast meetings at hells kitchen the last time we were in minneapolis so I don't that that venue is per-see devoid of opportunities to escape. > Cheers, > > > On 09/08/2010, at 4:14 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: > >> Hi Bob - >> >> I appreciate and believe that this is your highest priority, but I >> think we may differ on how to best accomplish a successful meeting. >> Maastricht for me was an example of the low end of sort of >> successful sites and that's primarily because of the conference >> center with hotels model rather than the opposite model of a hotel >> with a conference center. >> >> In Maastricht, there wasn't a central hotel bar, no place to happen >> upon 3 or 4 disjoint conversations on wide topics, no 11pm >> discourse on how to fix the problem that came up in the session >> earlier that day. No place to buttonhole Russ or Olaf over a beer >> after dinner, etc (although they may appreciate that). >> >> A great portion of the IETFs success is due to cross fertilization >> and serendipity and that has been fed in the past by having a >> comfortable place with drinks and food that you pretty much have to >> go by to get to your hotel room. Typically, these have been the >> most successful (in terms of new ideas and energy) meetings. >> >> In Maastricht you had that big central room with uncomfortable >> chairs and pretty much no reason to be there if you weren't using >> the internet or weren't either going to or coming from a WG >> session. I saw few random gatherings (but I admit, I probably >> wouldn't have been able to tell them from the non-random ones). >> Compare and contrast this with Anaheim for example. So, Maastricht >> was probably fine if you were narrowly focused on your WG(s), but >> not so great if you were interested in how the various problems >> might interact or were interested in learning about the IETF >> itself. >> >> It's also possible that I'm waxing philosophical for a portion of >> IETF culture than is no longer important to the current crop of >> participants - but that's life I guess. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> At 11:16 PM 8/7/2010, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> Mike, >>> >>> Just to be clear, the highest priority in venue selection is to >>> find a venue where we can have a successful meeting. We won't go >>> anywhere were we don't think we can get the work done. This >>> discussion is where to have a meeting, but not at the expense of >>> the work itself. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> >>>> Fred said this much more eloquently than I could. >>>> >>>> On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion >>>> about where to meet - with the primary consideration seeming to >>>> be "pretty and small". I may be in the minority, but I'd >>>> really rather the IETF go places where the ability to "get >>>> work done" is the primary consideration. >>>> >>>> So going forward, I hope the considerations for location will >>>> give higher weight to meeting the needs of the folks doing the >>>> work (my second list of folk) and the folks who keep coming >>>> back (the first list) than to the single meeting snap shots. >>>> Its possible the demographics for my two lists are similar to >>>> the raw demographics so my point may be moot - but why guess >>>> when we have the data? >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 12:34 AM 8/7/2010, Fred Baker wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do note that it seems clear that registration is related >>>>>> to where we meet. That show up pretty clearly the current >>>>>> data. So judging where to have future meetings based on >>>>>> past participation will tend to keep us where we used to >>>>>> meet. Nomcom is, as you point out, 3 of 5 meetings. WG >>>>>> chair and authors might have a longer history. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with the "openness" principle, but I disagree with >>>>> this analysis. >>>>> >>>>> "3..5" is another way of saying "people that attend multiple >>>>> times". As noted by others, first-time attendees (who by >>>>> definition haven't attended anywhere else and therefore give >>>>> us no guidance) and local-only attendees (which is unknowable >>>>> but demonstrably a component) aren't very interesting. What >>>>> is interesting is trying to serve people that participate. We >>>>> went to Adelaide on the observation that we had IETF >>>>> participation from there and a proposed host (which was also >>>>> why Adelaide was chosen over, say, Sydney) at a time that we >>>>> had never been to Australia. We went to Amsterdam, Stockholm, >>>>> and so on on the observation that we had significant European >>>>> participation and proposed hosts. We went to Japan when >>>>> Japanese participation became important, and we're going to >>>>> China in November largely in response to the fact of credible >>>>> levels of Chinese participation. So observing participation >>>>> doesn't limit us to where we have been, it extends us in the >>>>> direction of those who p > a >> rtic >>>>> ipate. >>>>> >>>>> Looking at people who have attended multiple meetings, and >>>>> using the nomcom rubric, make sense to me more than worrying >>>>> about first-time and local-only attendees. I would take it on >>>>> faith that we will have the latter wherever we go, and build >>>>> on those that return. >>>>> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing >>>>> list Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>> >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf