On 26/08/2011 16:48, Mary Barnes wrote: > [MB] I've not seen a single person advocate a 0:3:0 schedule and it's only less > cheaper for all participants (not just US) because the hotel rates are extremely > reasonable (<$150 as I recall). It is definitely less expensive for the vast > majority of participants than NA cities like Quebec City and San Francisco that > travel by air. BUT, I think you are missing what we are saying overall - the > major reasons some of us prefer Minneapolis is because it meets what some of us > have been saying over and over as far a key factors for meetings: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68656.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68727.html I like Minneapolis as meeting location too, assuming that the visa troubles we had there last time are solved, and I'd be happy to make it the default location for US meetings. However, we have said that we want to meet all over the planet. That means that we have to go elsewhere somewhere, even if there is a good and cheaper meeting location available elsewhere, but in the wrong region. The same goes for the meeting weeks, if a good hotel option isn't available in a meeting week but is available a week or so earlier/later, then under the present rules, it has to be discarded. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf