--On Monday, January 04, 2016 12:20 -0600 Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [MB] My personal thought here is that the change has been due > to the fact that we seem to be going to more exotic venues and > also to venues that are more touristy destinations - e.g., > Orlando during one of the busiest weeks of the year, Europe in > the summer, Hawaii in November, etc. I realize that it's a > minority that prefers Minneapolis, but I'd like to see the > data in terms of length and degree of participation and > contribution to IETF that goes along with the preferences for > various destinations and it would also be nice to see how many > people that prefer more popular tourist destinations travel > with companions that would have no interest whatsoever to > spend time in Minneapolis in the winter. I understand a bit > that the popular touristy destinations attract more paying > participants but I question whether they attract more long > term contributors. >... Mary, I share your concern, but three observations to add to your note: (1) While it is clear that people who favor going back to Minneapolis are in the minority of the Meetings Committee (at least as they and the IAOC count votes), it is much less clear that such people are in the minority of active participants in the IETF. (2) The data your note requests have been requested several times. I don't know whether they are really hard to collect, or hard to report on, but it is not a subject on which the IAOC has chosen to be forthcoming. If the community considers this important, it needs to make it clear to those who appoint IAOC members (the IESG, IAB, and Nomcom at different intervals, but including Nomcom-appointed people who serve ex-officio on the IAB) that it _is_ important, important enough that people who won't promise the community that they will push for data reporting along those lines should not be appointed. (3) Finally, at least based on experience trying to reserve hotels for other bodies, at least two additional things are working against us that were not, e.g., pre-crash. One is that, often, trying to work three (or nine) years in advance and get contracts in place may work against us -- the hotels, like the airlines under somewhat-similar circumstances with advanced-purchase fares, are naturally inclined to hold some rooms back in the hope of later selling them at a higher rate. Within limits and all other things being equal, the less in advance one tries to get them to commit, the better a sense they have about what they are going to be able to market to others at a higher rate and the more rooms (and at better prices) we are likely to be able to negotiate. Second, my impression is that the number of non-plenary, non-WG, meeting rooms we "need" to reserve has gone up very significantly. That puts additional constraints on the number of hotels that can accommodate us (or are willing to) and hence, in all likelihood, what we can negotiate (if only because the hotels perfectly well know that our options are limited). Whether we need all of those spaces or not, it is fairly clear to me that the community has not been asked what it would be willing to sacrifice some of them in order to get better deals, larger blocks, etc., and the IAOC and Meetings Committee have certainly not asked (one has to assume either because they think the community is incapable of understanding the issues or that they know what answers they would get and wouldn't like them). best, john