Thanks Marshall, I had suspect the process was something like that. I had not realized how much the pre picking the dates reduced the options. On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > > On 24/08/2011 23:12, Keith Moore wrote: > >> Maybe there needs to be some sort of voting system for future venues. > > > > First of all, remember that the community asked for venue selections > > 2 to 3 years in advance. I don't think that many people can predict > > if they will attend a meeting 2 years from now. > > > > This proposal would require that the secretariat works out 3-4 proposals > > for meeting locations in great detail. That is a lot more work than > > the current approach: > > Really? that is fascinating in itself. I had assume that the current meeting selection did consider more than one place. > > Of course it does. For example, for the last meeting there were a number of venues considered, most of which were knocked out quickly, say because they were already booked for "our" week. Eventually, it boiled down to Vancouver vs QC, which were pretty even in every regard except for the travel situation. Thus, the survey. That rarely happens if the past 5 years are any guide. > > I think that the meeting selection process is inherently iterative. Pseudo code might be something like > > - Find a list of all venues we can in the target area for the target week. The number of these is rarely if ever more than 10. > > - do an evaluation of venues for availability and suitability > > - remove any sites that are not available or are unsuitable. > > - rank the remainder for suitability, and do a more thorough evaluation, focusing more on the higher ranked locations. > > - repeat the last 3 steps until convergence, tightening the filters based on what's learned about the sites > > At the end of the process, there may be only be one place left, but it certainly was not the only one considered. > > Until recently, sponsor availability was an important part of venue ranking. Now, with the 3 year out meeting selection process, that coupling will largely (but not entirely) go away. Basically, this change IMO increases the risk of not getting a sponsor, in return for a better choice of available venues. I suspect it will take a few years before we will see what the actual cost/benefit ratio is for this change. > > Regards > Marshall > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf