Re: voting system for future venues?

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

 




--On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 21:56 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>...
>> Just a reminder, the community VOTED for Quebec City.
>> 
>> Backing up Dave here, the community repeatedly VOTES or, in 
>> post-meeting surveys, INDICATES (VOTES) for the sort of
>> venues we have  been booking.
> 
> OK, what follows is based on precisely one data point (i.e.,
> me), but I hope you will see that it is therefore as worthy as
> these two claims about the community having "voted for Quebec
> City".
> 
> I pondered long and hard when I answered that stupid survey
> question. Because what it asked me was, "Which would you
> prefer, Vancouver, Quebec, or <I think one other North
> American place I can't remember>?" And I, stupidly apparently,
> answered Quebec. And it was stupid because I didn't think you
> were actually going to count as you apparently did. You see, I
> answered Quebec because (a) I like Quebec as cities go; (b) it
> happens to be a shorter physical trip for me than Vancouver;
> and (c) I happen to work for one of those companies who pays
> my bills, so I really don't care what the relative prices of
> hotels are.
> 
> But you never asked the question that I would have answered
> quite differently: "Which place is the most logical for the
> IETF to meet?" Because had you asked that, I surely would have
> chosen Vancouver over Quebec. It's a crapload easier for most
> folks to get to, they have facilities that have worked well
> for us in the past, and *I don't object to going to Vancouver
> over Quebec*. You see, if you start asking for objections as
> opposed to desires, I think you'll get much different answers.
> You'd certainly hear about objections to certain travel
> itineraries. You certainly hear objections to total cost
> profiles. Because the community is now weighted in favor of
> folks with corporate travel budgets, I suspect the "desire"
> answers are going to be much different than the "objections"
> answers.
>...

FWIW, and a second data point: I tried to point out this
particular difficulty in the "vote" process several times, both
when the poll was being conducted and more recently.  While our
reasons are different, my response to the question asked and my
likely responses had the obvious other question(s) been asked,
would have been identical to yours.

> But I don't think you are justified in
> claiming that without some additional data. And either way, I
> don't think "Where do you want to meet?" is the right question
> to ask.

Exactly.

> There are a host of reasons that voting is a stupid decision
> making process. I thought we knew that.

We used to, once upon a time.

best,
   john


_______________________________________________
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]