On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 07:39:42PM +0100, Loa Andersson wrote: > point is that if peple don't get visas we do not meet some of our key > people at all Sure, which is why we move around. The current state of affairs is admittedly quite bad in that we've had a series of nominally Asia-Pacific meetings which have included "Vancouver" as being in the Asia-Pacific. The IAOC has, I think, discussed this in broad terms without specifying the details (since those were subject to NDA because they were part of negotiations). In the broadest term, we've the problem that we announce our meeting dates way in advance without already having a venue in hand, which means that in a negotiation we have a weak hand. Apparently, that has turned out to be a problem in the A-P region. I note we're going to Japan in 2015. At every meeting there is some case about people not being able to get there, which is certainly a problem. But I find it vexing how this always causes an _ad hoc_ chorus heave into existence to say, "Why don't we just?" What one wants is a weeklong meeting of you and 1000 of your closest friends with dates fixed several years in advance and with a wide range of constraints as to affordability, ease of attendance for a very wide array of people, unusual requirements like "minimise trains" and "only use plastic water bottles", slightly more usual requirements like "range of foodstuffs" and "ample availability of significant quantities of drink with quiet-enough places for 30 people to discuss something nobody else could possibly care about", and no barriers to entry for anyone. I'm not sure we're going to be able to engineer that solution here on this list. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx