On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, John C Klensin wrote: > Ole, > > In years past, when we have had a small venue or venue-connected > hotels, we've arranged contracts so that there are really two or > more "official" (even if not all "HQ") hotels, hotels with which > the IETF has contracts that cover relevant policies, Internet > access, etc. ***OLE: Yes, and we do this time as well. > > We also managed to announce all of those hotels at the same time > as the HQ one, thereby alleviating some of the panic that leads > people to want to make reservations in the first hours in case > they might want to come (something I've been guilty of as my > meeting attendance pattern shifts to "decide within the month > prior to the meeting whether I really need to travel to it"). ***OLE: I believe it was the intention to announce them at the same time, but it was not possible for reasons I will let others explain. > > That is different from "overflow hotels", with which IETF/IAOC > has traditionally facilitated identification of locations and > reservation arrangements but not otherwise been involved, and > "nearby hotels" that are around and may be identified but for > which the IETF doesn't even identify a handy travel bureau. > > Since you seem to be the one giving reassurances, what are the > actual Yokohama arrangements on the spectrum between "official" > and "nearby"? ***OLE: Please stand by until the announcement is made, I don't have all the information at hand, but I do know there are plenty of rooms at nearby hotels, at reasonable prices. > > Also, and reinforcing Melinda's point that this many imply that > we should be lowering emphasis on f2f meetings, part of the > claimed value of f2f IETF meetings has always been the informal > meeting opportunities. We seem to be getting away from that as > the traditional "Bar BOF" becomes something that is formally > organized and scheduled, the Thursday evening examination of > drafts and draughts get harder to reliably schedule, and so on. > But distributing people among multiple hotels tends to make > those semi-spontaneous events harder to arrange (e.g., if > breakfasts are included in hotel rates and/or hotels don't > expect people to eat breakfast there would aren't staying there, > scheduling actual breakfast meetings can get challenging). > > My experience with many IETFs (although not as many as you, > Mike, and a few others) is that, especially in the last several > years, there always seems to be something, even after one > adjusts for the tendency of the community to whine and make a > big issue out of small glitches and inconveniences. I can't > help but feel that some of them indicate that we are losing > sight of our priorities relative to effective meetings versus, > e.g., nice locations or outreach to new regions or locations. ***OLE: I would say that it mostly boils down to our MEETING room requirements which appear to be ever-expanding. But that's probably a discussion for another list/day. > > john > >