I do. May be you do not leave far enough from IETF venues.
Regards
as
On 6 Aug 2012, at 11:18, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the
> hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF
> recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I
> have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes
> Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). And
> of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in
> your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from
> here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly
> cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I
> didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris
> has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location
> constrained.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124
> [email protected] | http://www.baesystems.com
>
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 06 August 2012 15:07
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan;
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> This message originates from outside our organisation,
> either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the priority
> (over hotem)....
> Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even
> though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext
> Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>
> Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has also
> been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.) Contrast
> with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right in the city.
> Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking a break to go
> to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm
> deliberately not including tourism here.)
>
> However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend possible
> would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise that's impossible
> globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is noise) and the ability
> to plan ahead to only attend part of the week. This is the current economic
> reality. Dublin actually scores quite well on those for me.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124
> [email protected] | http://www.baesystems.com
>
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Daniele Ceccarelli
> Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
> To: Andrew Sullivan; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> This message originates from outside our organisation,
> either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the
> last meetings.
>
> What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok
> with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was
> wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is
> it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or
> Sweden, aren't they?
>
> BR
> Daniele
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: lunedì 6 agosto 2012 14.06
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> enough merely to have excellent staff. We need to go back to the
>>> better places and benefit from the learning curve. This
>> doesn't mean
>>> "no new venues" but it means fewer.
>>
>> As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want
>> to return to? I get your argument in principle, but it seems
>> to me that there has been quite a lot of complaining in the
>> past. The one factor that seems to me most likely to reduce
>> complaints -- weather -- is evidently beyond the Secretariat's
>> or IAOC's control.
>>
>> People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver,
>> elevators notwithstanding. We're going to do that. (I don't
>> understand why the previous Vencouver venue was less desirable
>> -- to me, these venues were very similar, and not very far
>> apart. I note, however, that the previous two Vancouver
>> visits were near the end of the year, when it rains all the
>> time in Vancouver.)
>>
>> People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I
>> presume it's out.
>>
>> Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel
>> expense in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
>> Should we try to return there?
>>
>> People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although
>> afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue. I
>> note that the weather was great. Should we try to return?
>>
>> I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in
>> 2011, which was striking to me because very little seemed
>> different to me compared to our first visit there. Perhaps
>> this is evidence of the "tuning"
>> you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance).
>> But I note the weather was excellent.
>>
>> Beijing? I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought
>> that was an example of a terrible location, but many people
>> seemed happy with it)? Hiroshima? Stockholm? San Francisco
>> (we thought the crime at Paris was bad, yet didn't complain
>> about being smack up against the Tenderloin)? Or there's the
>> old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we could do it in March.
>> The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of people.
>> Philadelphia, people complained about expense. Chicago, too
>> (combined with hotel renovations).
>>
>> That gets us back through 2007. Which of the venues do you
>> think we should return to, to which we already haven't
>> returned or planned to return? And why?
>>
>> For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to
>> any of those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of
>> them except Hiroshima, which I missed due to other
>> commitments. That includes both Maastricht and Dublin, which
>> were both apparently trials for large numbers of others.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
