From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:10:29 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <2224339706.985771850@P2>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>At 06:30 AM 3/28/2001, John C Klensin wrote:
>>Subject to constraints of invitations and practicality, part of
>
>Continued reliance on invitations and hosts ensure several problems.
And some advantages. Besides, there have been hostless meetings.
>One is that we tend to lock in a location one year later than we
>should. Should be 2 years, and we tend to run no better than 1. That
>constrains choice and that either increases price or decreases convenience.
While it contrains choice, it does not necessarily increase price or
decrease convenience. Many large conventions reserve space 5 or 10
years out. When you get down to 1 year out, facilities that are not
yet reserved are generally desperate and you can frequently negotiate
good deals.
>Another is that the host is usually not skilled at the relevant technical
>details for a conference. Usually the host compensates by throwing massive
>money or staff at the problem; usually that is sufficient. With
>regularity, it is not.
These hosts are technical companies. I'm not involved with the behind
the scenes part of the IETF meeting network. I'm sure people can find
plenty to complain about but it has always served my needs adequately.
And there seem to be plenty of equipment and service providers willing
to donate in return for a banner sign in the terminal room and a
mention from stage.
>If we are serious about trying to optimize the meeting in terms of cost,
>reliability and convenience, we need to choose a standard set of extremely
>convenient (and less expensive) locations and then keep using them.
>
>Re-use reduces learning curve and that reduces problems (and cost).
You can also get stuck in a rut where people are afraid of change.
I've also seen facilities that were happy to negotiate a multi-year
(say 3 year) contract for an annual meeting at a good rate because it
was in a dead period and then, at the end of the contract period, have
their Dilbertesque management look just at the revenue record, insist
that it was no longer a dead period due to your multi-year contract,
and make the sales staff ask for a price higher enough to drive you
away.
>>the plan has been to do this statistically. I.e., when 2/3 of
>>the active participants are from outside the USA, I assume we
>
>As I believe Randy Bush pointed out, the flaw in this analytic methodology
>is that a meeting in the US is an unequal barrier to participation from
>outside the US. I'm not "voting" for changing the current proportion of
>US/non-US meetings, but do feel compelled to note the danger in using
>history as the basis for deciding the future.
Everything is an unequal barrier including location, dates, language,
etc. While some efforts to equalize such things are warranted, that
is not the mission of the IETF.
>>* There are many places which, were we to hold meetings in them,
>>would set off concerns about junketing and tourism of other
>>sorts. Many organizations have rules about "conventions" which
>>IETF escapes but which would get invoked if we started a regular
>>tour of known tourist locations in season.
>
>On the average, IETF decisions are best made when they focus on the primary
>concerns of a situation and not on the ever-present mass of other issues.
>
>Worrying about possible rules that some organizations might have is like
>worrying about national encryption laws. It's distracting and reduces the
>quality of our product. We clearly made the right choice to ignore
>national variation in security laws.
>
>We should equally ignore all but the essential factors in making meeting
>logistics "optimal". My own view is that optimal is determined by access
>convenience (international hub), cost, and reliability of networking and
>presentation services.
>
>Three factors are more than enough the try to optimize.
>
>The rest need to be ignored.
I don't agree. I consider variety of location to be a viture in
itself.
>If we are serious about the issues that cause complaints about IETF meeting
>logistics.
There will always be complaints. The fact that there are complaints
does not necessarily imply the need for substantial change. There are
also compliments. Given human nature, you need to multiply the
complements by at least 10 before comparing with the complaints.
>From my end-user point of view, there has been a substantial trend of
improvement in IETF meeting logistics over the years. While I don't
think the Secretariate can relax, I see no reason for a change in
direction.
>d/
>
>----------
>Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
Donald
PS: I've managed facilities for three meetings with attendance of over
5,000 people and a number of smaller meetings so I do know something
of what I'm talking about.
===================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Streeet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Milford, MA 01757 USA +1 508-634-2066(h) +1 508-261-5434(w)
