On 25/08/2011 01:03, geoff wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:28 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 1) We don't have to go to any particular location. There has been an
>> assumption made by people in this discussion that sometimes when we pick
>> locations with particularly expensive hotels, we'll get particularly
>> expensive meetings. That's great except that we were the ones who chose
>> to go to those locations.
>> If we can't meet our cost targets at a location, go somewhere else.
> Sam makes a really good point here. We didn't have to go to Taipei.
> For some reason we chose to go to Taipei.
Not quite. There is a requirement to have meetings all over the world,
in a ratio of 1:1:1 for Europe, North America and Asia. Considering
that we have to go to Asia, Taipei looks like a sensible choice: it
is in the middle of the region, it well connected, and it is one of
the bigger economies in the region.
I have a feeling that if we dropped this requirement and went for a
0:3:0 schedule because it is much cheaper for the US participants to
go to M'polis 3 times/year, somebody else would complain.
> The hotel (and
> host if there was on) could/should have been told -
> sorry too expensive.
I've lost track what has been officially announced, but in one of the
future years, the 1:1:1 requirement has been dropped as there was no
suitable venue in one of the areas.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
http://www.uijterwaal.nl
Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
(John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
