At 9:24 AM -0500 1/12/16, John C Klensin wrote:
But that gets back to an example of the same old set of tradeoffs --and my desire that those involved in the process be a lot more transparent about it. Your comment above is reasonable and even obvious. But there are cities (apparently including Buenos Aires) where there are approximately zero hotels that have enough rooms to give us an 800 or 900 room block. So, would you propose a hard rule of "stop considering any city unless we could got a room block of at least N rooms", with N somewhere in the range of 800 or 900? Unlike the variety of more subjective rules, it would be very clear and easy to interpret. My assumption about IETF 95 is that, despite understanding and considering the disadvantages of smaller hotels, the decision-makers believed they had a sufficient "go to Buenos Aires" mandate to override hotel or room block size considerations. I presume that, for the future, we could change that if we had consensus that, e.g., minimum room block size was a firm requirement.
I'm not fond of hard rules, and would be fine if we had some clear information as to why this city was chosen despite the room block issue. Which of course is an example of your calls for transparency. Maybe a semi-rigid rule that can be overridden with good cause (sort of a SHOULD rather than a MUST)?
-- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- Secrecy is as essential to Intelligence as vestments and incense to a Mass, or darkness to a Spiritualist seance, and must at all costs be maintained, quite irrespective of whether or not it serves any purpose. --Malcolm Muggeridge