On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > Geoff Mulligan <geoff.i...@mulligan.com> writes: > >> Maybe the majority doesn't care one way or the other - they will just go >> wherever the meetings are held in which case: >> let's make them easy to get to >> cheap >> decent food >> one roof (with other hotels near-by) >> cheap >> and easy to get to > > Having watched this debate play out in multiple venues (ICANN goes all > around the world 3x a year as well) over multiple years, I've come to > the following main conclusion: > > 1) you can't please all the people all the time, and there will be > griping no matter what we do. We've got 1200 attendees. That's a lot > of folk who have differing ideas of what is important.
+lots And the folk who are happy with the status quo / apathetic / just glad that they don't have to choose locations are likely to be silent, so the tone of the conversation is very negative. I probably fall into the apathetic / glad it's not me category -- I care about: 1: Being able to meet and get work done. 2: Having a hotel really close / attached to the venue (so I can drop my bag off between sessions and dinner). 3: Having sort of food somewhere nearby. I view the meeting as work time, not vacation time -- if we meet in a resort in the Alps or a hotel in New Jersey, it's all the same to me (and, I suspect, to many) and so I haven't been very vocal on this thread... > > 2) There is no perfect solution. There are too many variables, not all > of which are known in advance. And, everyone weighs various factors > differently. Convenience of travel, for instance, is very different > for US-based folk vs. Chinese and Australians. > > 3) The absolutely most important thing to get right is a meeting venue > that works for getting work done. In my mind, the really key things > here are: > > a) everyone can (easily) walk to the meeting site (this facilitates > mingling, including at the bar) > > b) there is ample local food within walking distance (again for > mingling/meetings) > > c) proper facilities (adequate meeting room, wireless, range of room > rate options, and yes, I suppose cookies, etc.) > > If you get the above right, the other inconveniences don't matter > (except maybe visa hassles). Or more precisely, folk can (and just > should) deal with it. 100% agree. > > Seriously, taking one extra plane hop (or gasp! riding a train!) is > just noise, when talking about a meeting that lasts 5+ solid days. > I'd much rather take an extra hop to get to a meeting venue that works > well, then save a few hours travel time to reach a venue that doesn't > have places to eat. > > Etc. > > Hub cities are no panacea. I too like Minneapolis. As a venue, it > meets the key IETF needs as better than most places we've visited. It > has good airline connectivity (not perfect, but good). It meets the > key criteria above. You can also walk everywhere underground in the > winter, so the argument that it's "too cold" seems specious. Etc. > > But does everyone like Minneapolis? Apparently not. I'm told that the > IAOC has stopped going there because they were getting too many > complaints. People do get tired of going to the same places, even if a > location works. > > I've concluded that going to new places is better than hubs. Even > though I rarely take vacation in conjunction with meetings, getting > 1/2 a day to sight see or even being able to walk into town for dinner > in a new location is a positive thing over being at the same places > too often. And I've concluded that the IAOC have a crappy job to do and that folk like to kvetch. If they found a private Caribbean island with free flights and a 5 star resort for $10USD per night, *someone* would complain that the sand was too hot and the falling coconuts were a hazard... W > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
