On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:38:57PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Then go from "no clash" to "minimal clash". I look forward to the mailing list discussions in which we debate the relative importance of different clashing events. It will provide a welcome change in topic: we can move from "here is how I want to optimise IETF meetings" to "here are the most important other meetings to me." As I understand it (and I think someone already said this upthread), the point of the early date selection is that the IETF sets its dates first, and then others have to/may schedule around it. Given that we all of us apparently cannot even agree to disagree about the definition of "secondary" and "primary" airline hubs, what are the chances we'll be able to pick meeting dates after others have picked theirs? The hard truth is that arranging a meeting for over a thousand picky, cheap geeks from all over the world is a very hard problem. Simple answers like voting systems will not result in happy people anyway (please look up "Kenneth Arrow" before you decide I'm wrong), and so we have to fall back on trusting the people we have selected, via the NomCom, to do this job. For my part, I think they're all either insane or saints: that is just a thankless task, for which one inevitably gets coated in rotten fruit. People keep demanding more openness, but anyone who has ever negotated a contract ought to know perfectly well that such negotiations don't happen in the open; and that the details of failed negotiations end up secret, too, because neither party wants to give away their positions. The demands that the IAOC open that up are, in fact, a demand that prices go _up_, since the other side of the negotiation would be in a position to understand negotiating strategies. Every unusual issue for every IETF venue results in this sort of second-guessing of the IAOC, and I think it's silly. (But if you really think you can do better, I understand there's an IAOC slot up for consideration by the NomCom this year.) Indeed, rather than asking how we can optimise the meeting location for people who live at 1234 Pine Street, Springfield, USA, why don't we ask why we are having three meetings a year? I hear there's something called the Internet. Do we really need _everybody_ to get together in one place so often? Especially given that we have such a globally dispersed population that we now have to trek all over the globe for meetings? Maybe we need to have more interim virtual meetings, and fewer in-person meetings. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf