On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:34 -0600, Geoff Mulligan wrote: > I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even > permanently. > > > Geoff > > > > > > On Aug 6, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "Richard Shockey" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [RS> ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was > > a boondoggle.
I imagine that few employers would ever argue that a trip to Hell would be a boondoggle, either, but that doesn't make it a good idea... > > The Hilton in Minneapolis of all the IETF meetings I’ve attended > > has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is > > the best choice IMHO. It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to > > get to and the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we > > had many more attendees). Personally, the weather is not critical > > to me, since I spend the vast majority of my time in the hotel > > meeting rooms, so I'm very happy if we meet there in March and > > November. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > > <[email protected]> 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. > > ******************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > >
