-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: lunedì 6 agosto 2012 14.06
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
enough merely to have excellent staff. We need to go back to the
better places and benefit from the learning curve. This
doesn't mean
"no new venues" but it means fewer.
As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want
to return to? I get your argument in principle, but it seems
to me that there has been quite a lot of complaining in the
past. The one factor that seems to me most likely to reduce
complaints -- weather -- is evidently beyond the Secretariat's
or IAOC's control.
People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver,
elevators notwithstanding. We're going to do that. (I don't
understand why the previous Vencouver venue was less desirable
-- to me, these venues were very similar, and not very far
apart. I note, however, that the previous two Vancouver
visits were near the end of the year, when it rains all the
time in Vancouver.)
People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I
presume it's out.
Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel
expense in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
Should we try to return there?
People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although
afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue. I
note that the weather was great. Should we try to return?
I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in
2011, which was striking to me because very little seemed
different to me compared to our first visit there. Perhaps
this is evidence of the "tuning"
you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance).
But I note the weather was excellent.
Beijing? I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought
that was an example of a terrible location, but many people
seemed happy with it)? Hiroshima? Stockholm? San Francisco
(we thought the crime at Paris was bad, yet didn't complain
about being smack up against the Tenderloin)? Or there's the
old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we could do it in March.
The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of people.
Philadelphia, people complained about expense. Chicago, too
(combined with hotel renovations).
That gets us back through 2007. Which of the venues do you
think we should return to, to which we already haven't
returned or planned to return? And why?
For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to
any of those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of
them except Hiroshima, which I missed due to other
commitments. That includes both Maastricht and Dublin, which
were both apparently trials for large numbers of others.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx