Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:

 I agree 100% that the question is pretty
 useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
 of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
 take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
 difference IMHO.

It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them out and doing them, plus elapsed time.


  I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
 responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
 many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
 and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
 would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
  that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
 7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
 ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
 in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
 Internet.

A good observation. It's been perplexing how many people seem to prefer what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for the core purpose. I think your explanation makes sense: some people go for only a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectability to uninformed opinion.       --John Lawton
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]