I made always good experiences with meeting venues in the downtown of hub cities with good flight connections. As a European for me the east coast of North America is better than the west coast. So far my experience was very good with following meeting locations and would agree for a repetition: Vancouver, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Paris, London, Stockholm and even Minneapolis (brrr). Bad experiences were: Dublin (60 min. as a sum to drive for a dinner), Maastricht (60 min. as a sum to walk for a dinner), Anaheim (far away from the LA airport) Why don't we actually plan a meeting in Boston, New York, Madrid, or Lisbon? Cheers, Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Andrew > Sullivan > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 5:06 AM > 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