Why the survey should limit it to the last five meetings... In the long history we experienced additional good places.... So maybe the survey should be more open and let each list his 3-5 favorable places based on the experience from earlier meetings? Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:11 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity) Dear colleagues, On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:42:10AM -0400, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > I expect that a chunk of the variance hinges on the qualifier While the vagaries of air transport costs fascinate me, I'm not sure how the question of the cost of one route at one time for one person is broadly relevant. The basic fact of having meetings in multiple places (which is a direct consequence of trying to spread the pain of travel) is that sometimes each of us will have an expensive flight. (This is the same reason that I think confusing the scheduling-in-advance question with the venue question is a bad idea.) Dave Crocker's original point was that some venues are "good enough" that you can tune them to be better. I was sceptical, but upthread we had two proposals: Minneapolis and Prague. Nobody seems to have argued against. Any others? At the plenary in Vancouver we heard "go here again", and we've already decided to run that trial in any case. That makes three. Also, many people expressed satisfaction in Québec. Vancouver's Pacific location notwithstanding, this appears to me to suggest that we have one "repeat" location in Europe and two in North America. This leaves us rather thin in Asia-Pacific. I recall people saying good things about Taipei. The point of all this, in case it isn't clear, is to ask to add a question to the post-meeting survey about specific venues and whether future meetings should try to return to them. Given Arrow paradoxes and so on, I think a short list with "yes/no" for each is much more likely to yield useful aggregate results than a big list or a rank order. So, I'd like to suggest the following survey item be added to the post-Vancouver survey: Do you support the IETF returning to the very same venue (hotel and meeting facilities) as the last time in the following meetings: - IETF 84, Vancouver (Hyatt) [Y|N] - IETF 82, Taipei (Hyatt and TICC) [Y|N] - IETF 81, Québec (Hilton) [Y|N] - IETF 80, Prague (Hilton) [Y|N] - IETF 73, Minneapolis (Hilton) [Y|N] I suppose we could just add every venue from the last _n_ years, but I'm reluctant to do that because I think it will give too many options. I seem to recall at least some of the previous post-meeting surveys asking this question about the venue we were just in. I think it would be interesting, however, to pick a few popular venues and track their ratings over time. This is merely a suggestion for the IAOC, and I hope they feel free to treat it as a bad idea. (It's also the last I have to say on this topic, since I've used up my bit quota.) Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx