I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American meeting. There is a reasonable convenience factor in terms of nearby hotels, restuarants and food markets (there's an excellent one just a couple blocks from the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that folks preferred Quebec City, which suggests that the majority of folks don't favor the idea of returning to the same city. Having had a meeting previously in Quebec City, I personally think overall Vancouver is a far better choice. The travel options from DFW (3rd busiest airport in the world) to Quebec City are not so great. I likely will rent a car in a more easily reachable city and drive.
Mary. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm sure other people remember this, but ... > > > I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying >>> a new venue is a lot of work. >>> >> >> One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save >> money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to >> quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis? >> > > My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to > problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other > considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People > complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly. > > So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I > suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps "Vancouver" - we've > been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel > right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was > raising). > > Spencer > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
