At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:
I agree 100% that the question is pretty useless if Maastricht is considered secondary. A survey of the number of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct difference IMHO.
It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them out and doing them, plus elapsed time.
I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair and how many WGs they are presenting in. Asking folks that question would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as 7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and Internet.
A good observation. It's been perplexing how many people seem to prefer what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for the core purpose. I think your explanation makes sense: some people go for only a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.
-- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- #Random Tag -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions. --Albert Einstein _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
