(personal view as a past meeting sponsor / no LLC hat on)
Another challenge no one mentioned is that cities are not static things over time - they can become more and less suitable for many reasons. Neither is the state of hotels and conference sites static - new ones being built open new options, renovations happen, while others may be poorly maintained and decline in quality. In addition, it is often quite difficult to find available venues in a city due to conflicts with other orgs that have already booked the space. If there were only 5 cites per region it could be that 2 of them have venues under renovation and 2 or 3 are booked, leaving the IETF with little or no choice in some cases. Finally it is natural the a prospective meeting sponsor wishes a meeting to be in a specific location (e.g. Madrid or Philadelphia).
Jason
On 2/20/20, 7:23 AM, "ietf on behalf of Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of julien.maisonneuve@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sticking with the same set of 10-15 cities over time can become problematic if some drop off the list when conditions degrade (in one of the may scales we use for selection). Likewise previously unlikely cities can become possible again when conditions improve. Possibilities for renewal are important.
Julien.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx>; IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: limiting our set of cities
Jay, and/or Jason:
Can you tell the community if the LLC has any plans/thoughts to stop looking for new places to meet, rather to just establish a list of 10-15 cities where we have successfully met, and simply repeat?
Many have suggested this as a better policy, but it seems that it's just discussion.
Christian Huitema made a good case already for the Asia list being not just Bangkok/Singapore, but also including Tokyo/Yokohama and Seoul.
That's four for Asia.
One could easily add: North America: Vancouver, San Francisco, Montreal, Philadelphia.
Europe: Prague, Berlin, London, (Paris?)
There, that's 12 cities already, and I said 10-15.
Could probably add another three. Maybe Madrid will wind up on the list.
I'm sure that many of the cities on your list are potentially interesting, but why bother make the effort?
Yes, we should have "*" in the rotation 1-1-1-*, but we should do it intentionally as reach out.
I don't see Austin (or Ottawa, or Malta) as being reach-out, as nice as they might be.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
