> That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3C > and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping > participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we > went to the current advance scheduling. Understood. But I wonder of we've forgotten the original motivation for this rule and it has become an unchangable slogan (e.g., "four legs good, two legs bad") If, in fact, a date we've chosen turns out to be problematic in terms of getting a good site, the IAOC should consider (emphasis on *consider*) whether an alternate date would be better. Of course, such a change in date should not be done lightly. And it should not be done with out checking with the specific organizations we try to avoid clashes with, etc. But to say the dates are fixed and immovable no matter what seems unhelpful. At the plenary, I recall it being said that for one of the upcoming asian meetings, the exact dates were problematical, and alternate dates would have had better options/rates. When I suggested privately to the IAOC that they should *consider* changing the date, I got (what to me) felt like one big knee jerk "we can't change the dates, period." Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf