IETF hotel selection mode and a proposal (was" Re: Hilton BA is Booked already?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ray,

I found the information in your note (including especially the
information that the "hold out for special people" block has
reached 28% of rooms available) very helpful and hope others did
too.  

Others may disagree, but I think I've heard clear support in the
community of people who actually do work for treating what
Melinda described as "getting work done" as the first priority.
I also think this discussion have been going on long enough that
"we have to work three years in advance" is no longer an excuse
for not being able to adjust planning policies.  Empirically, we
aren't working that far in advance anyway: I note that the
schedule at http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html shows
"TBD" from IETF 98 onward, so, regardless of our aspirations, we
are working less than 18 months out, not 36.  We have also, IIR,
moved at least one meeting on relatively short notice (less than
two years), so that is feasible when the powers that be judge it
important enough.

I also note that, when the community is asked questions about
advanced planning in this area, the questions would often
qualify -- in the language of professional opinion research --
as "rigged" to produce the results desired by asking.   In the
case of the IETF, I assume the problem is lack of experience
rather than malice (I suspect that the number of active IETF
participants who are professionally trained as opinion
researchers and survey instrument designers can be counted on
the fingers of one hand) but we end up getting questions like
"should the IETF go to Latin America" and not ones that would
even attempt measure how much disruption and impediments to
getting work done active IETF participants consider acceptable.
Finally, before making that suggestion, I note that the
arguments some years ago for contracts with particular hotel
chains and working three years in advance included favorable
treatment on room block sizes and similar arrangements as well
as rates.  That doesn't seem to be working out and, if there has
been a policy review about it, I don't think the community has
been informed.

My sense from all of this is that the IAOC (or at least the
meetings committee which I presume is accountable to the IAOC
and am told serves at the IAOC's pleasure) isn't taking "get
work done" seriously enough as a priority, perhaps because its
members are insulated by those "hold outs" from feeling the
actual pain.  So I want to suggest an experiment, effective for
IETF 95 - 98 (to be sure we pick up at least one North American
meeting).   

The suggestion is that no member of the meetings committee, no
member of the IAOC, and no individual whose organization is
represented on either the IAOC or the meetings committee be
treated as part of a "hold out" block or otherwise allowed to
book a room at the main hotel during the first 30 days after
booking officially open.  "Organization is represented" excludes
all of the IAB, IESG, and all ISOC employees because they have
ex-officio representatives on the IAOC.    I think exceptions
for special circumstances, such as needing to be in the meeting
hotel because of some critical meeting-running function, should
be allowed. but only if the individual and circumstances can be
made public.

If the hotel situation really isn't interfering with getting
work done and the regular rounds of complaints are just the
usual community complaining (in lieu of cookies), then the
experiment shouldn't be particularly burdensome or harmful.  If
any of the affected parties consider their "hold out"
reservations to be an important perk of their positions, the
community (and, where relevant, the Nomcom) should know that.
And, if it helps focus attention on the community's real
priorities, the accountability (including membership selection
processes) of the meetings committee, etc., that would be, IMO,
a definite win.

best,
    john


--On Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:57 -0500 Ray Pelletier
<rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>...
> The block contracted was:
>...
> 95 rooms (840 total rooms - 28% of the total block) were held
> out for a sub-block at the $209 rate for NOC Vols, Verilan,
> AMS, IESG,  IAB, IAOC
>...




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]