On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:44:32PM -0400, Scott Brim wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > and Vancouver have stood out. But still, the only really serious > > consideration for me is whether or not the facilities make it easier > > to get done the things that need to get done. > > Using those criteria, I would rate Prague and Beijing as good as or > better than Minneapolis, and cheaper if you avoid the big hotels. Thanks to Scott and Melinda for demonstrating the problem I saw in the original position. Dave's original argument was that by going back to places instead of finding new ones, we win by being able to tune. But I am unable to see from the evidence the kind of agreement on a site that results in mere tuning. For _every_ meeting, I can think of some set of people who will have reservations about the venue for some reason. That is not the basis for simple tuning. Some people (many of whom are the squeakiest wheels) appear to have internally inconsistent sets of demands. I think the people selecting venues -- return or otherwise -- have a thankless job, and I think that we should stop trying to manage that job on a list of a thousand people. "This worked, that didn't" is, we've heard, useful feedback. Aside from that, I don't see what more we have to say. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx