Re: smaller number of locations. I think we’ve heard the sentiment from the community, and I think some of the results of that wish are already visible in the upcoming meeting locations that have been announced. That is, out of the 6 out of the 7 known upcoming cities are repeats, Singapore being the exception. Out of the 6 repeats, we’re also often using same hotels*, and 5 out of the 6 we have been to already more than once. The same trend is likely to continue in the meeting locations that haven’t been selected yet. Also, in general, our policy has already been that we’d like to see a local community. The IETF leadership gets occasional requests for "the IETF to come to a country", and we say that’s great, we’re happy that you are interested, lets talk about ways to increase participation rather than a meeting. Some of us may be able to talk at their events, we can help educate how to participate in the IETF, we can establish connections with ISOC, put some local organisations together, etc. So I think we all pretty much agree that the sort of blind, out-of-the-blue participation at a meeting site is unlikely to happen and not the goal of our meeting selections. However, that does not mean there is no value in *some* rotation and change. Balanced against extra effort for research and learning with a new hotel. From a pure contracting perspective it is good to have options, too. But more importantly, continents are big. Our participants already come from many different countries and places, and spreading the travel pain within a continent may be a consideration as well. The closer you are, the more likely you are to be able to attend. (And we should probably move this discussion to mtgvenue, because this isn’t about IETF #100.) Jari *) being intentionally vague here
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail