On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/27/2011 10:30 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/27/2011 7:48 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >>>> >>>> What I have heard is that the community would prefer going to locations >>>> that were easy to travel to over "interesting". >>> >>> >>> How do you reconcile this assertion against the clearly positive group >>> reactions to Prague and Quebec? >>> >>> FYI, in relative terms, even Minneapolis is second-tier. >> >> I have no idea what the "community" wants--and I'm not convinced that >> the data we >> have available lets us assess that, for the usual reasons about the >> difficulty of doing >> accurate surveying--but speaking solely for myself, I'm at IETF to >> work, so my priorities >> center around the things that make it easy to get work done. This >> basically boils down >> to cost and convenience. > > Good to hear. Getting rid of cookies can save a _lot_ of money & since > you're "at IETF to work" I'm sure you wouldn't mind if the conditions > more closely approximated those of the typical office; no office I've > ever worked in has provided free cookies & beverages twice a day... I'm not sure that getting rid of food at breaks would save a lot of money. Do you know what the actual numbers are as a percentage of the overall cost? With that said, it's actually quite common for workplaces to offer free snacks and/or beverages, not only twice a day but 24/7. Maybe you should consider a different class of employers. >> Within these general parameters, my priorities are something like: >> 1. Cost: >> - Travel >> - Hotel >> >> Rationale: airfare tends to not be that flexible, but it's generally >> possible to find a cheaper >> hotel if you try (as several people have observed). However, if the >> conference hotel >> is $300/night, then this is probably going to trickle down some into >> cheaper hotels so >> it's not like hotel doesn't matter. >> >> >> 2. Convenience: >> - Length of trip. >> - Local services >> >> Rationale: travel time is time I'm not working (yeah, we all try, but >> I'm not that effective >> and I suspect most people are not.) Lack of local services means less >> time meeting >> and more time rushing around trying to find lunch before the next >> meeting, walking to >> and from the hotel, etc. > > So, do you live in your office? Next door to the building? Across the > street from the office park? If not, why are you applying criteria to > the IETF "workplace" that you don't to everyday employment? Funny you should mention that, since I work from home most of the time in part to minimize commute time. > For that > matter, for one whose (not primary, but _only_) purpose is work, **** Strawman alert **** > finding > lunch is a non-problem: you simply eat whatever is closest, quickest, > most efficient, without any regard to taste or surroundings (e.g., the > company cafeteria, analogous in this case to the hotel restaurant(s)). Maybe you've noticed that the hotel restaurants are (a) expensive and (b) tend to fill up quickly, which often makes it hard for people to actually get in and out in the relevant time. This would of course be far worse if there were no reasonable restaurants in the area. > WRT walking to and from the hotel, I know that I, at least, am not paid > to type (if I was, my clients would be getting a really bad deal ;-). I > get paid to think, and I'm pretty sure that you are, too. I don't know > you very well, but I think it's a sure bet that you can think & walk at > the same time :-). I find that I work more effectively when I have computer and Internet available, neither of which is the situation when I'm walking to and from the conference center. Your mileage may vary. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf