Re: IAOC Meeting location selection
--On Friday, May 29, 2009 15:24 -0700 David Kessens wrote: > > John, > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:39:17PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> When you have time, I (and I believe others) would like to >> understand better how you evaluate "reasonable costs for the >> IETF and attendees". I think it is general knowledge that it >> is possible to trade IETF costs off against participant costs >> (e.g., making things cheaper for the IETF and more expensive >> for participants). It would be good to know how the >> participant costs are estimated and how the two are balanced. > While I appreciate your interest in such details, I believe we > should also be realistic in how precise such trade-offs can be > made. Eg. the IAOC just doesn't have the staff or budget to > create detailed models on the cost/benefit analysis and the > IAOC would easily end up in a situation where more > money/energy gets spend to try to determine the optimum site > location and to fully inform the community on every decision > it makes. Basically, what I expect the IAOC to do is to make a > judgement call based on the various variables. Please reread what I wrote. I didn't ask for "precise trade-offs". I didn't ask for "details models on the cost/benefit analysis". Bob said that they looked at "participant costs". I'd like to know what they examine in that process. I care less about how they make the calculation / judgment call than I do about whether "participant costs" equals "hotel room rates plus registration fee" or whether there is some effort to consider, e.g., * Costs of getting from the airport to the hotel. Sometimes those are significant, sometimes not. * Costs of eating around the venue. We've been in places where the only real options are hotel restaurants or long cab rides and other places where the hotel and meeting facilities are surrounded by a large range of options. * Costs of transport to/from the venue. I have no idea how to actually calculate that without a model of the IETF population and where we come from and am _not_ suggesting constructing such a model. But there are places to which airfares are traditionally very high relative to other places, either due to distance or to the vicinity being served by only one character, and I wonder whether IAOC is trying to consider it. Now, in each of those cases, I am actually asking a very simple question. Both your note and several private ones I've gotten seem to think I'm asking "please expose the complex mathematical model you are using and what the parameters are for each site considered". I'm not and never have. For each of the above and anything else that the IAOC or its meeting committee think might be part of "participant costs", I'd like to know: (1) Is this factor being considered? (2) If so, has there been some attempt at data-gathering or estimation, or is the judgment purely subjective? Please note that those two questions have "yes" or "no" answers. They don't even require explanations. It is possible that, once the community gets those answers, there will be a discussion about whether the IAOC's optimization criteria agree with those that the community prefers. As an example, if the "participant cost" category is considering only hotel room costs, I think we might have a discussion about registration fees. I would consider that discussion constructive as long as it was about principles rather than an attempt at micromanagement. I hope the IAOC would consider it constructive too. For completeness, I hope that the IAOC is also considering "participant comfort" and "environmental livability". I note that we are now getting information about construction projects. That is a significant improvement but, like it or not, it took one of these flaps about the decision-making process before the information started being shared with the community and, I suspect (but don't know because we weren't told), before the question started being asked aggressively. We've also had long discussions about air quality, safety, smoking conditions, and availability of options for particular diets. Again, my concern is whether those questions are being asked in the IAOC and the answered considered and _not_ what the answers are. And, like the question above, the questions have simple, binary, answers and do not require analysis and detailed models. The _only_ question I've asked that can't be answered in such a way is how "participant costs" and "IETF costs" are compared and weighted. Without answers to the questions above, that question is meaningless (which is part of the reason for asking those questions). And I realize that the answer to this one is likely to be entirely subjective... and have no problem with that. But, come on... it really is possible for the
Re: Differing topics (was: IAOC Meeting location selection)
--On Friday, May 29, 2009 23:29 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:23:26PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: > >> discussed, not always separately, in this thread, > > I should have said "these threads", of course -- I was > implicitly tying this discussion to the recent discussion of > particular sites for meetings. But the general point is still > that the process issue about the community understanding of > how things get decided is distinct from (and more important > than) the decision process itself or actual selection. Yes, exactly. john ___ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Differing topics (was: IAOC Meeting location selection)
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:23:26PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > discussed, not always separately, in this thread, I should have said "these threads", of course -- I was implicitly tying this discussion to the recent discussion of particular sites for meetings. But the general point is still that the process issue about the community understanding of how things get decided is distinct from (and more important than) the decision process itself or actual selection. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Differing topics (was: IAOC Meeting location selection)
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:34:03PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: > our Asian colleagues, that means flying to a major US or Canadian airport > like EWR, ORD, or YYQ, and taking another flight to YQB. [other air routings elided] Also, note, the passenger rail service to Québec from either Montréal or Toronto is not frequent; not real fast; not convenient; and not especially cheap, given that Canada partly came into existence as an excuse to run rails across the continent. So your alternative options for travel are somewhat limited [1]. The above diversion aside, I think there are really two topics being discussed, not always separately, in this thread, and I think the one I (at least) think is more important is not getting exposed as well as it might. 1. The IAOC sometimes picks places that are $wrong_somehow. I find this issue hard to get worked up about, and I find I have little sympathy with arguments talking about how inconvenient travel to $location is. I'm aware I don't have the onerous travel obligations some do, and perhaps there is a real problem I don't understand. Nevertheless, if we're going to have single large physical meetings of international contributors, some people are always going to have to be inconvenienced. It's good for the community, I think, if sometimes those of us from North America (and large North American cities, at that) are the inconvenienced ones. 2. It is hard to understand what the IAOC is doing, and what factors weigh in their decisions. This is partly because the IAOC minutes aren't published as quickly as perhaps some would like; and, when they are, they do not contain as much detail as some might like, either. (This basic issue is doing a lot of the important work in John Klensin's arguments, for instance, and though he's stated this fairly clearly, I don't have the impression it's getting as much attention as it ought.) To the extent we think this issue is a real one, it seems to me that it's important to get this one fixed. If I am right about these two different topics, then (if we are to continue this thread) I'd prefer to hear clearly stated arguments -- and suggestions for improvements -- about (2). If (2) is true, then (1) is just a symptom, and not a compelling one for some of us. Best regards, Andrew [1] That said, if you can put up with the hassles of getting to the train from wherever you land, and the fair chance that your train will not have functioning climate control or will fail to run on time (or both), some of the route is pretty and worth looking at from a train. Also, Via Rail's seats are quite comfortable and, in my experience, the staff are loads more cheerful than the surly lot that seems to have taken over Air Canada in recent years. Since this is not yet officially the grouse-about-lousy-travel-options list, however, I'll stop with my reviews now. -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC Meeting location selection
I don't think we have a specific set of requirements from the community. Dave Crocker and some friends started putting some notes together more than a decade ago, and last I spoke with him about it he had dropped it because he had been unable to form a consensus. Maybe that needs to be renewed. What we do understand we know as much as anything because we ourselves are IETF participants. As Bob put it, the first requirement is that the meeting be effective, and the direct implications of that include that it be reasonably accessible at a rational cost, that it have a meeting facility with an appropriate set of rooms, that it have enough hotels and restaurants and that they be rationally located with respect to the meeting facility, and so on. After that, we get into a lot of minutia of the costs of this and that and the desires of the sponsors. There are also some purely business issues that come up - sometimes we can horse-trade prices when comparing locations. Taking one example that you mention in your note, I don't believe that the IAOC understands the community requirement to be "direct international flight" - we don't bend a rule there, we understand the rule to be something different. If we did think the rule was "direct international flight" and interpreted that literally - "for any given meeting, a participant from Australia, New Zealand, Korea, China, Japan, any European country, Canada, or the US needs to be able to get to the exact location using at most one international flight and take no additional leg afterwards" - I think the set of places we could meet would be very small, probably the null set, simply because of the number of places we come from and their various geographies. What we do understand the requirement to be is that the number, cost, and convenience of connections, along with other costs and issues, be optimized for the average participant, and yes we try to do that to the extent that we can. In consideration of that, look at the question we asked about Vancouver vs Quebec City. Ray will give the results Monday when the poll closes, but at this instant we are running about 2:1 in favor of Quebec City. For our Asian colleagues, that means flying to a major US or Canadian airport like EWR, ORD, or YYQ, and taking another flight to YQB. For our European colleagues, there are a few direct flights from Europe, but for the most part they will similarly go to New Jersey, Chicago, Montreal, or Toronto, and then on to YQB; from ARN to YQB int.net finds 44 paths but only five that have a single stop, and those are all via ORD or EWR. In the US, folks will fly to one of a few major hubs and fly on to YQB. For me personally, itn.net tells me that I will fly from SBA to a major hub like LAX or SFO, from there to a hub near the US/Canadian border like ORD, DTW, YYZ, or EWR, and then proceed to Quebec City - three legs, and I will probably do it the day before rather than trying to do it in one day. I would expect that our ANZ colleagues will follow me - a long hop to LAX or SFO, another to the US border with Canada, and a final hop. Vancouver is a major international hub, but Quebec City is not; like Minneapolis, Dublin, Prague, San Diego, Dallas, Vienna, Stockholm, Hiroshima, Atlanta, Orlando, and Maastricht, it is a place one gets to one hop beyond a major hub. And what we are being told is - "Vancouver is nice, but let's go to Quebec City". On May 28, 2009, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Bob, I'd like to express my thanks for this information. I believe that, if the community had more information of this sort, updated as needed, we would have fewer firestorms when meeting sites are announced. When you have time, I (and I believe others) would like to understand better how you evaluate "reasonable costs for the IETF and attendees". I think it is general knowledge that it is possible to trade IETF costs off against participant costs (e.g., making things cheaper for the IETF and more expensive for participants). It would be good to know how the participant costs are estimated and how the two are balanced. Similarly, there is presumably a point at which sponsor preferences have to give way to other considerations. Could you give us a sense as to when that occurs? Put differently, at what point might you decide that dealing with a particular potential sponsor's preferences are sufficiently inflexible and/or onerous that you lose interest in sponsorship from that organization? It appears to me, for example, that the IAOC has, more than once, dropped both the "same facility" and "direct international flights" requirements, and pushed the boundaries of the "participant costs" one in order to get a sponsor and accommodate their needs.That isn't necessarily the wrong decision, but I believe the community should be better informed... and that we would have much less ruckus if
Re: IAOC Meeting location selection
John, On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:39:17PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > > When you have time, I (and I believe others) would like to > understand better how you evaluate "reasonable costs for the > IETF and attendees". I think it is general knowledge that it > is possible to trade IETF costs off against participant costs > (e.g., making things cheaper for the IETF and more expensive for > participants). It would be good to know how the participant > costs are estimated and how the two are balanced. While I appreciate your interest in such details, I believe we should also be realistic in how precise such trade-offs can be made. Eg. the IAOC just doesn't have the staff or budget to create detailed models on the cost/benefit analysis and the IAOC would easily end up in a situation where more money/energy gets spend to try to determine the optimum site location and to fully inform the community on every decision it makes. Basically, what I expect the IAOC to do is to make a judgement call based on the various variables. So far, I don't believe there is any evidence that IAOC has made decisions to hold meetings in places that are completely out of the question. At the same time, by occasionally holding a meeting in a location that is somewhat unusual, we will continue to be able to evaluate whether all our assumptions about the importance of airline hubs or the desirability of a short train trip are really that important for all participants. Basically, instead of endless discussions on the merits of a required short railtrip from 1 of 3 different very large airports that are all listed very high in the european top 10 hub airports, let's go to Maastricht and see how it will work out. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC Meeting location selection
Bob, I'd like to express my thanks for this information. I believe that, if the community had more information of this sort, updated as needed, we would have fewer firestorms when meeting sites are announced. When you have time, I (and I believe others) would like to understand better how you evaluate "reasonable costs for the IETF and attendees". I think it is general knowledge that it is possible to trade IETF costs off against participant costs (e.g., making things cheaper for the IETF and more expensive for participants). It would be good to know how the participant costs are estimated and how the two are balanced. Similarly, there is presumably a point at which sponsor preferences have to give way to other considerations. Could you give us a sense as to when that occurs? Put differently, at what point might you decide that dealing with a particular potential sponsor's preferences are sufficiently inflexible and/or onerous that you lose interest in sponsorship from that organization? It appears to me, for example, that the IAOC has, more than once, dropped both the "same facility" and "direct international flights" requirements, and pushed the boundaries of the "participant costs" one in order to get a sponsor and accommodate their needs.That isn't necessarily the wrong decision, but I believe the community should be better informed... and that we would have much less ruckus if it were. regards and thanks again, john --On Wednesday, May 27, 2009 22:15 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: > Given the recent discusion on travel to IETF78, I wanted to > summarize how the IAOC makes decisions on IETF meeting > locations. > > We first set the dates and general geographic location about > three to four years in advance. For example, the future > meeting calendar at > http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt goes out through > the end of 2013. We are maintaining on average a rotation > between Asia, North America, and Europe with the goal of no > more than two of three meetings in North America. We do this > because we believe the community wants the dates set well in > advance and to have a reasonable balance between NA, Europe, > and Asia. > > The IAOC's most important criteria for meeting locations is > where can we have a successful IETF meeting. That is, hold a > meeting where the IETF can get its work done. The next items > are 1) having the meeting and hotel rooms in the same building > or a conference center next to the > hotels, 2) direct international flights, 3) reasonable costs > for the IETF and attendees, and 4) the ability to deploy an > IETF style network in the venue. This list isn't ordered and > we don't always achieve all of this for every meeting, but > these are the goals. There are always tradeoffs. > > If we have a host for a specific meeting and the host has a > location preference we try to honor their preference. Having a > host for a meeting significantly reduces the cost to have an > IETF meeting. This is especially important for meetings > outside of North America where the meetings rooms are not > included with a block of hotel rooms. Due to the current Visa > situation in the US we are planning many meetings outside of > the US. > > In the case of hosted meetings we might relax some of our > criteria like direct flights or hotel and meeting rooms in the > same building, but we will never pick a venue where we don't > think we can have a successful IETF meeting. For non-hosted >... ___ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IAOC Meeting location selection
Given the recent discusion on travel to IETF78, I wanted to summarize how the IAOC makes decisions on IETF meeting locations. We first set the dates and general geographic location about three to four years in advance. For example, the future meeting calendar at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt goes out through the end of 2013. We are maintaining on average a rotation between Asia, North America, and Europe with the goal of no more than two of three meetings in North America. We do this because we believe the community wants the dates set well in advance and to have a reasonable balance between NA, Europe, and Asia. The IAOC's most important criteria for meeting locations is where can we have a successful IETF meeting. That is, hold a meeting where the IETF can get its work done. The next items are 1) having the meeting and hotel rooms in the same building or a conference center next to the hotels, 2) direct international flights, 3) reasonable costs for the IETF and attendees, and 4) the ability to deploy an IETF style network in the venue. This list isn't ordered and we don't always achieve all of this for every meeting, but these are the goals. There are always tradeoffs. If we have a host for a specific meeting and the host has a location preference we try to honor their preference. Having a host for a meeting significantly reduces the cost to have an IETF meeting. This is especially important for meetings outside of North America where the meetings rooms are not included with a block of hotel rooms. Due to the current Visa situation in the US we are planning many meetings outside of the US. In the case of hosted meetings we might relax some of our criteria like direct flights or hotel and meeting rooms in the same building, but we will never pick a venue where we don't think we can have a successful IETF meeting. For non-hosted meetings, we try to pick convenient locations and vary the locations. That is, we try to not always meet in the same city in the same geographic area. For example, we are currently trying to decide between holding a meeting in Vancouver and Quebec City. We are confident both could have a successful IETF meeting and both have hotel and meeting space for the dates we are looking for, but there are differences. Note, we looked at other Canadian cities, but these were the only cities where we could find acceptable hotel and meeting space for our dates. We have had meetings in Vancouver twice before and it meets most of the above criteria, but at the same time Quebec City appears to be a nice new place to meet but doesn't have as many direct international flights. We decided to ask the community for feedback in the form of a poll. I would note that the current results show a strong leaning toward Quebec City and this is somewhat at odds with some of the email thread on IETF78 in that many people seem to be willing to trade some travel inconvenience for a new venue. We will publish the results of the poll when it is completed on June 1. In the case of Hiroshima, that is being hosted by WIDE, we know there will be challenges for some to travel between Tokyo and Hiroshima, we are working with the host to provide a lot of information to make this as painless as possible. There is already a link on the IETF web page with a link to this information. We are planning something similar for Maastricht. Also note, that we were originally planning another location in Asia but the original sponsor was not able to do the meeting, the WIDE group helped us out to find a location in Japan. There are other possible locations in Japan, but Hiroshima was the only location that had availability on our dates. For the Masstricht meeting we had a potential host who wanted to sponsor IETF78 in the Netherlands. Three venues in the Netherlands were available on the dates we wanted, but the other two were significantly more expensive. Consequently, we choose Masstricht knowing that the local travel would be more complex. The process inside of the IAOC for venue selection is two fold. We have a meetings committee that includes the IAD, IAOC members, NOC and community volunteers, and the secretariat. Most of the work happens in this committee and they produce a list of choices for a meeting in a specific geographic location and meeting dates. There is normally a site visit if it is a new IETF location. The meeting committee prepares a summary of the choices including costs, along with their recommendation. These are presented to the IAOC as a whole. Based on this input the IAOC makes the final selection. Once that is done the IAD and the secretariat work with the venue to develop a contract. The IAOC will also approve the contract. If there are people interested in joining the meeting committee please let me know. We are always on the lookout for people who have a lot
