I do. May be you do not leave far enough from IETF venues. Regards as On 6 Aug 2012, at 11:18, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: > I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location constrained. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 06 August 2012 15:07 > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the priority (over hotem).... > Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful! > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM > To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.) Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right in the city. Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking a break to go to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm deliberately not including tourism here.) > > However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend possible would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise that's impossible globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is noise) and the ability to plan ahead to only attend part of the week. This is the current economic reality. Dublin actually scores quite well on those for me. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli > Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24 > To: Andrew Sullivan; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the last meetings. > > What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or Sweden, aren't they? > > BR > Daniele > >> -----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 >> >> > > ******************************************************************** > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > distribute its contents to any other person. > ******************************************************************** >