Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 12:57 PM +1000 9/13/10, George Michaelson wrote: My impression of what some people seem to want, is that their personal constraint-set be applied globally. My impression is that there are a number of people who choose, against all evidence, to believe this, despite repeated statements of what people want. I might add that if the excluded party feels this is oppressive, I am sorry. It is not intended to be. But, at some level, sooner or later, you have to be willing to say I'm the problem here, not the remaining 999 people who have lesser constraints So, if some venues work quite well, and some pose great difficulties for a minority, we should ignore this (presumably because of the charm of the difficult ones). -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Q: Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together? A: To prevent the sensible ones from going home. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: All these discussions about meeting venues
Hi, I might add that if the excluded party feels this is oppressive, I am sorry. It is not intended to be. But, at some level, sooner or later, you have to be willing to say I'm the problem here, not the remaining 999 people who have lesser constraints So, if some venues work quite well, and some pose great difficulties for a minority, we should ignore this (presumably because of the charm of the difficult ones). I think one question is: WHO is responsible for dealing with a specific problem? Regards, Christer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 2:52 PM -0700 9/13/10, Fred Baker wrote: What I find irritating with these discussions is the perennial what idiot did this tone. What comes across very strongly is that the people whom we trusted enough to place in positions of responsibility grew horns the instant they entered the role and are now doing their very best to make everyone's lives miserable. I know it can be easy when criticizing something to slide into the vicinity of what idiots. I have tried to focus on the situations, not the people, but if any of my messages on the subject did stray, I apologize. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- I employ no person who smokes. --- Thomas Edison [Handwritten note by Edison to Henry Ford, April 26, 1914 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 4:40 PM -0700 9/13/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: The other thing that is irritating is the tendency to dismiss or attack serious efforts to make serious comments. Yes, indeed. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed. --Bill Gates in an interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 10:53 AM -0500 9/13/10, Mary Barnes wrote: While no venue is perfect the following venues have been exceptional in terms of meeting the above two requirements: Minneapolis, San Franciso, Paris, London, Chicago, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Vancouver, Seoul By the way, I happen to be in Minneapolis at the moment (a different group is meeting here), and am reminded of how convenient the venue is. Plus, it's very nice to be here when it isn't cold :-) -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. --Blaise Pascal, 17th-century French mathematician and religious philosopher ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Randall Gellens wrote: At 6:39 PM +0200 9/22/10, Christer Holmberg wrote: I think one question is: WHO is responsible for dealing with a specific problem? In most of the emails, people are only asking for reasonable access to resources for solving the problem, not that someone else solve the problem. Speaking as a member of the IAOC (and not FOR the IAOC), I believe that our role, and certainly our goal, is to pick a venue where we can have a successful and productive meeting. And yes, this does include considerations of transportation, hotels, restaurants and other resources. Do we always get this right? No. Does it usually involve some kind of tradeoff? Yes. As has been stated, some types of venues are inherently easier than others. Certainly. Then there is the matter of availability for our fixed and announced dates, financial considerations, host vs no-host, and so on. I do agree, that at least in the long run we most likely could make this easier and more predictable by taking a number of steps which have already been outlined on this list. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Ole, On 9/15/2010 9:40 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: As long as the prioritization of requirements is kept the way it is, yes, we will regularly have these sorts of constraints on our choices. No, this is actually regardless of what we prioritize for, assuming we want major venues. The major venues of the world are not sitting around waiting for us to call and book with them on our fixed dates. I think I'm missing your point here. It appears to be that we should not try to make the process and outcomes better and more stable, because we can't make them perfect? Seriously, the pattern of your responses appears primarily to indicate that we should not make any changes, no matter what problems there are with the current scheme. (I realize that you have explicitly said otherwise and that you repeat that towards the end of this note. The problem is that your notes primarily focus on making broad statements that serve to reject proposals, frequently based on straw demands or expectations that were not made. It's really quite confusing.) Availability is a major issue. Pick ANY major city in the world which would satisfy your other requirements and see how far you get. That they are not available forever misses the fact that they /are/ available. It equally misses that there is an inventory of them. While it's certainly true that they get reservered by others, it's also true that there is more than one of them and that one well might be available to us. This, of course, presumes that we follow a planning process that improves the odds of our getting such places. It is, of course, possible to make sure that we make choices which /preclude/ getting them. And it's pretty easy to argue that that is exactly what we have been doing. That's why we ended up in Hiroshima and not Tokyo (or Yokohama). I We ended up in Hiroshima because we followed a process that locked us into Japan and did this too late for us to have a choice on venue. In other words, there are strategic problems with what we've been doing, so it is inevitable that we will have significant tactical problems. The solution to this is not to focus on the tactical problems in isolation, but to look harder at the basic approach for site selection. We should ask some simple questions, such as what criteria ensure a stable, convenient, (relatively) inexpensive venue that reliably satisfies the needs of an extremely diverse set of attendees, most of whom will be traveling long distances and might not be experienced travelers? Then we should ask what process will improve the odds of our satisfying these criteria? The core answers appear to be that: * We need to hold meetings in a few locations so that we can benefit from a learning curve * The locations need to be extremely resource-rich to satisfy the diversity needs * The locations need to be in dense, major transportation hubs. Dense means that the resources are convenient. Major transportation hub means that they are significantly more convenient to reach. have a proposed fix which involves getting commitments from host (or sponsors or insert entitity here) many years in advance, but even that will take time to have an impact on reality. That's a strategic approach, yes. But it also is almost certain to fail. There are few organizations willing or able to make such expensive commitments far enough in advance. That's one of the major reasons for de-coupling site choice from funding. Note that I am *still* very much in favor of having some small set of regular venues and I do not consider the IETF an opportunity to explore new places in the world (not much time to do that anyway during IETF week), but having worked on this for a while I know what the constraints are. An appeal to authority is probably less helpful than one might wish, when exploring strategic change in an open forum, with others who also have significant experience. Your responses are not in the style of tradeoffs but of rejection. That's not merely a case of offering insight from experience but of rejecting proposals without acknowledging their benefits. The fact that an alternative model will have constraints should be a given. The discussion should be about the relative benefits and risks of alternative approaches. It doesn't mean things can't change, but it probably means things cannot change overnight as some comments seem to have implied. Since no one has said anything about the rate of change, what is the relevance of this comment? This is an example of asserting a straw condition that you then use to undermine a proposal. Please consider merely noting what a reasonable rate of change is, rather than noting that it cannot be instantaneous. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 9/15/2010 9:44 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: I have been told that there was a free bus every ten minutes from the MECC to central Maastricht. I did not use it so I cannot say if this is accurate or not, but assuming it is, would that satisfy? (The ride to town would have been about 5 minutes). Ahh, so the regular 15-30 minute waits that I and others experienced didn't really happen? We must have just had bad timing. (The bus between the venue and my hotel ran, at most, twice an hour. And my hotel was one of the ones recommended on the IETF site.) And, of course, all of this would have been additionally delightful if we had had to wait in the rain. I'm told that it does rain occasionally in The Netherlands. In any event, taking a bus to/from one's hotel is different from needing to take it to get any variety in lunch. Anecdotes about someone having done this do not make it reasonable for 1000 attendees to rely on it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 15 sep 2010, at 19:44, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Sorry, no. Waiting for these and paying for these is not convenient or reasonable for 1000 people, just to get to daily resources. d/ I have been told that there was a free bus every ten minutes from the MECC to central Maastricht. I did not use it so I cannot say if this is accurate or not, but assuming it is, would that satisfy? (The ride to town would have been about 5 minutes). That was about correct, although I did choose the 20 min walk instead about 50% of the times. Patrik ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Dave Crocker wrote in one of his abundant messages today: ps. Some of us, including Ole and me, have expressed our views overly much and overly strongly. ... I agree. ... The question, then, is where the rest of the community lands on this issue? Here we go! (Full disclaimer: somehow active in the IETF since several years, 2 meetings attended so far, Dublin and Maastricht) In another message today, Dave Crocker wrote: On 9/14/2010 10:28 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: Virtually no attendee had a vehicle at either of those venues (or many others.) People willing to ride on a bus or pay for a taxi are those with vehicles. Sorry, no. Waiting for these and paying for these is not convenient or reasonable for 1000 people, just to get to daily resources. d/ Firstly, as Ole repeated, the bus system in Maastricht was for *free* during IETF, on showing your IETF badge. And experience showed that not all attendees need transportation at the same time with the same source and destination address. :-) Secondly, the Netherlands are well known as the land of bicycles. My room rate in a small BB in Maastricht included free use of one of the bikes they held at the disposal of their guests. (And I knew from the reservation service that the larger hotels provided bike rental as well, yet not all at no additional cost.) That turned out to be even faster and much more convenient than using a bus/car in Maastricht: there were lots of bike tracks on roads and otherwise (e.g. alongside the river); almost all traffic restrictions (recall the overwhelming number of one-way roads!) were except cyclists; at major road crossings, the traffic lights had sensor-driven priority phases for cyclists; and they had abundant parking areas for bikes all over the inner city, and at the MECC as well -- all at no cost. I guess that if all attendees physically capable of using a bike would have done so, the remainder would have had no problems to use the bus system (almost) all at once. :-) [ Note that this experience should perhaps not be extrapolated to Bejing -- I have been told by our friends located near the registration desk that riding bikes in Bejing has become _very_ dangerous now! ] Back to the general topical question: I'd strongly argue against (almost) fixed locations for IETF meetings. New venues will attract various new attendees with all kind of travel restrictions and will thus allow them to work better and more efficiently in the IETF subsequently. Spreading meeting venues all over the world to where such potential attendees can be expected (and maybe very occasionally even in regions with -- so far -- very poor participation) will help the IETF to continually refresh its blood and maintain, in the long term, active participation at a high level. This argument does not invalidate all the other important points made in the past -- foremost generally good infrastructure, availability of the venue, and reducing total costs for attendees! However, good accessability should not be confused with located in the vicinity of a major international air traffic hub, in particular because such vicinity seems to correlate pretty well with generally higher costs. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: a...@tr-sys.de | +++ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Dave CROCKER wrote: On 9/14/2010 9:58 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. Virtually no attendee had a vehicle at either of those venues (or many others.) And Dublin arguably had nothing nearby even for this elite set of folk. Having ones employer pay for a rental car is definitely convenient. I would not call it elite -- but most of the time a _very_ poor ROI. I participated 12 IETFs, had a vehicle during the IETF week on 6 of them (5x rental, 1x my very own car). Once I did the motel+rental vs. conference hotel trade-off, twice I paid personally for the rental. And on 6 of these IETFs I selfishly appended a vacation in that area. Personally, I liked Chicago Aug'98, Sheraton, weekend of the AirWater show. Lots of places in walking distance, but low-budget accomodations might be scarce. I also liked L.A. (97-WestinBonaventure, 96-Omni), San Jose (96-Fairmont), Memphis (97-Peabody) and Stockholm (95-Grand) Dallas (95-Hyatt) was OK (after they opened Reunion Tower to informal IETFers). Montreal (Jul'96) was a nice city, the convention center was central, but the hotels somewhat scattered over the city (metro commute). My baggage got delayed for a day when connecting through Paris-CDG. Washington(Dec'97-Omni) was somewhat non-central. Munich (Aug'97-Arabella) was quite far out in a boring part of the city. The Hyatt conference hotel in Orlando (Dec'98) with no elevators was quickconvenient for dropping off picking up stuff in your room, but it was very far out and nothing worth remembering in walking distance (I had a rental, though). The Social on Disney Treasure Island was fun. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: All these discussions about meeting venues
Mary Barnes [mailto://mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] writes: Glen, I had zero expectation that Maastricht would be anything like the city I live in. However, it never crossed my mind to think that the city would be so deserted when I arrived, nor that I would end up on the last train. So, you are correct that i did not come prepared with a list of taxi numbers, but that's because I have never had to do so on any of my many trips to Europe. My expectation, however misfounded you believe it to be, is that the places where business meetings are held, should have facilities suitable for travelers arriving at odd hours from international destinations. The problem seems to me not that such facilities did not exist in Maastricht but that there was some planning and effort required on your part to access them (the list of taxi service phone numbers being an example). Certainly, I have learned a good lesson and I will just rent a car if we ever have cities at smaller towns again. Certainly better than googling taxi Maastricht! While I may seem to be the only one with these issues, I know for a fact that others feel much the same as I do, they just would rather not be be harangued in the way that I have been by business colleagues. And, it's very, very sad that this hostility gets extended to anyone that might actually have some empathy and is able to actually understand what it's like for someone to encounter the situation that I did. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the _actual_ situation was that you got a taxi immediately; the problem is that you _imagined_ that you would have been stranded had it not been the case that that taxi had been dropping someone else at the station. At the risk of being labeled as hostile (not to mention sexist), I find it to generate a lot of sympathy for imaginary problems when so many people have real ones. That said, however, I have a great deal of empathy for people who actually are stranded, since it happened to me @ the Hiroshima airport (due in some part to flight delays but mostly my own stupidity -- I had thought about buying yen during my layover @ Incheon but thought that I would get a better exchange rate in Japan). In any case, when I arrived the currency exchange was closed and I had no yen, so could not buy a ticket for the bus to town. A taxi would have been much too expensive, and again, I had no yen to pay for it. Fortunately, an overly friendly Japanese person approached me after asking several questions about things that were arguably none of their business (including my hotel) arranged for a free ride to town on what was the last bus and provided very good directions from the bus station to my hotel. The point is that none of this was the fault of the IAOC or anyone but me. I understand that you have certain requirements WRT food; similarly, I suffer from a medical condition that requires me to ingest several different medications daily, at fairly precise intervals. For me to go to Beijing w/o an appropriate supply of medicine would be extremely stupid (if not outright suicidal) but if I did so I cannot imagine why anyone would think it reasonable for me to blame the IAOC for not co-locating the meeting with a pharmacy that carried the correct, American brand of drug. Note that, contrary to Melissa's assertion, this is not the same as dismissing accessibility: no amount of planning can make a paraplegic able to walk, for example. ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 14/09/2010 18:58, Michael Dillon wrote: Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. If the hosts or the IETF had operated a 15 min. shuttle service to the restaurant districts from 12 noon to 12 midnight, that would likely have resolved most if not all of the complaints about restaurants. Well, one of the things that I liked about Maastricht was that every attendee got a free pass for the entire city bus system. Busses left in front of the building, about once every 10 minutes from +/- 6am to +/- 11pm, and got you to the downtown area in about 10-15 minutes. Density of bus stops in the downtown area is such that most restaurants are within a few minutes walk of a bus stop. I used it a couple of times and it just worked fine. I'm not sure how a shuttle bus could have improved on this. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: All these discussions about meeting venues
Dave Crocker wrote: But, Fred, the problem really is with having such a varied population of attendees and then experimenting with new venues every time. This guarantees problems, because the varied population means that there is a complex set of requirements. No, all of the issues cannot be anticipated, nevermind resolved. However a resource-rich venue that is visited repeatedly means that the choices are much greater and that a learning curve can develop. I strongly resonate with this insight. The IETF has repeatedly returned to certain sites many times. Not all of them are desirable -- note, for example, Minneapolis in winter. However, the fact that we have been to those sites many times have made them a known entity which has fostered productive work. On the other hand, novel sites are interesting, enable new people to attend, show support for different language groups, and foster memorable events (tourism). The question for the group to decide is what are we trying to accomplish and what venues best assist us attaining our goals. Best wishes, --Eric PS: For those who note that it has been a long time since I have attended an IETF, let me merely note that I attend every IETF that is in Vancouver and that remote site locations impact my ability to attend. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 9/14/2010 9:58 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. Virtually no attendee had a vehicle ateither of those venues (or many others.) And Dublin arguably had nothing nearby even for this elite set of folk. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 9/14/2010 9:02 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Maastricht suffered an impressive variety of problems. Worse, some of those problems have become a recurring pattern. As examples, we have had a significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major transportation hubs and/or were distant from local resources such as the usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like. ... Of these I can name only Dublin as falling into the category which you class as a pattern. (what happened to Anaheim?) Apparently you only saw the reference to problems /at/ the venue and not the reference to remoteness of the venue. And apparently you didn't see the 'as examples'. By my own count, 2-3 of the other sites qualified for the problem list. We seem to be averaging at least one meeting a year that is remote or has significant problems. Please keep in mind that we have several non-negotiable requirements for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the meeting model won't necessarily change that reality. As long as the prioritization of requirements is kept the way it is, yes, we will regularly have these sorts of constraints on our choices. To assert that this means we can't meet the really important requirements even with a model change is pretty odd, Ole. d/ ps. Some of us, including Ole and me, have expressed our views overly much and overly strongly. The question, then, is where the rest of the community lands on this issue? -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 9/14/2010 10:09 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Dublin had its own set of problems, but as you say below, there was a bus service to the center of town and there were also a few nearby restaurants near the venue and in the two hotels. Ole, This is the sort of comment that does make it seem that the IAOC does not really understand the seriousness of the problems with some sites. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 9/14/2010 10:28 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: Virtually no attendee had a vehicle ateither of those venues (or many others.) People willing to ride on a bus or pay for a taxi are those with vehicles. Sorry, no. Waiting for these and paying for these is not convenient or reasonable for 1000 people, just to get to daily resources. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Sorry, no. Waiting for these and paying for these is not convenient or reasonable for 1000 people, just to get to daily resources. d/ I have been told that there was a free bus every ten minutes from the MECC to central Maastricht. I did not use it so I cannot say if this is accurate or not, but assuming it is, would that satisfy? (The ride to town would have been about 5 minutes). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Please keep in mind that we have several non-negotiable requirements for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the meeting model won't necessarily change that reality. As long as the prioritization of requirements is kept the way it is, yes, we will regularly have these sorts of constraints on our choices. No, this is actually regardless of what we prioritize for, assuming we want major venues. The major venues of the world are not sitting around waiting for us to call and book with them on our fixed dates. Availability is a major issue. Pick ANY major city in the world which would satisfy your other requirements and see how far you get. That's why we ended up in Hiroshima and not Tokyo (or Yokohama). I have a proposed fix which involves getting commitments from host (or sponsors or insert entitity here) many years in advance, but even that will take time to have an impact on reality. (Note that the fixed dates was community consensus and I think most folks agree that it is a good thing, other events tend to plan around us.) To assert that this means we can't meet the really important requirements even with a model change is pretty odd, Ole. I did not say that, see above. Note that I am *still* very much in favor of having some small set of regular venues and I do not consider the IETF an opportunity to explore new places in the world (not much time to do that anyway during IETF week), but having worked on this for a while I know what the constraints are. It doesn't mean things can't change, but it probably means things cannot change overnight as some comments seem to have implied. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:44:13AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote: I have been told that there was a free bus every ten minutes from the MECC to central Maastricht. I did not use it so I cannot say if this is accurate or not, but assuming it is, would that satisfy? (The ride to town would have been about 5 minutes). Since the entire thread has been dominated by competing anecdotes: I used the bus every day either coming or going, because I was at a hotel near the Maastricht central station. I also walked on some occasions. I found the bus to be convenient and pleasant. There was more than one route that worked. I even took a long route one time, on purpose, just to see what I wasn't getting to experience in the rest of the city. The fastest route took me to my hotel (Eden, IIRC) in under 5 minutes. The drivers all spoke excellent English and were friendly and helpful. Half the time, the bus looked like a bar BoF without the bar. I ran into another participant on the bus one day who told me he used the bus to go and get lunch every day rather than hanging around the MECC. He had plenty of time, he said, in the 1.5 hours. This was, alas, on Thursday or Friday, so I didn't try it myself. Given the time it took me to get to my hotel, and the five or six restaurants I spied immediately around it, I suspect it would have worked. I'm finding the complaints about the remoteness of the venue in Maastricht to be contrary to my own experience, but I didn't arrive late due to a delayed flight and I didn't have to get back to the MECC area in the evening. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Dave, I give up. We obviously speak different version of English. Since yours is native I am obviously in the wrong. Nothing in what I intended to say rejected yours or any other proposal, I merely expanded a bit on the details and the reality. Sorry to have wasted your time. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I ran into another participant on the bus one day who told me he used the bus to go and get lunch every day rather than hanging around the MECC. He had plenty of time, he said, in the 1.5 hours. This was, alas, on Thursday or Friday, so I didn't try it myself. Given the time it took me to get to my hotel, and the five or six restaurants I spied immediately around it, I suspect it would have worked. I'm finding the complaints about the remoteness of the venue in Maastricht to be contrary to my own experience, but I didn't arrive late due to a delayed flight and I didn't have to get back to the MECC area in the evening. It is beginning to sound like the real fault with the Maastricht venue was that people were not fully briefed on how to handle it. As Dave Crocker said, when meetings are held repeatedly in one location, people learn what works, where to find things, etc. It becomes a familiar place. Perhaps some additional effort needs to be made to provide guidance to attendees so that, for instance, everyone attending a Maastricht event knows that there is a free bus pass, it is 5 minutes to a choice of restaurants, someone has tested it during the lunch break hours and it is an easy round trip without being late, and so on. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I give up. We obviously speak different version of English. This is correct. When you see bus you think of a pleasant safe clean vehicle that arrives every 5 to 10 minutes, and efficiently takes you to any part of the city that you need. When an American sees bus they think of an unpleasant dangerous dirty smelly vehicle filled with poor people and teenagers carrying knives that takes 60 minutes to arrive even though the schedule promises a bus every 30 minutes and which only goes to useful places like hospitals, unemployment office, and dirty smelly dangerous poorly lit bus stations.# Any unfamiliar venue is foreign to attendees, even within their own country. The only way to make an unfamiliar venue seem unforeign is to explain how things work there. The complaints that come after every meeting follow a pattern. This pattern identifies which things people find problematic in foreign venues. I believe that the IETF could reduce the frequency of such problems by ensuring that these issues are all explicitly covered in a venue guide prepared with the assistance of the host and other local people. This guide should be available in advance of the meeting, roughly the number of week in advance when people start asking questions on the list about trains, taxis with English speaking drivers and so on. And it would not hurt to survey all attendees of the meetings, ask if there are any complaints, and then when the guide is ready, send it to all the complainers and ask them if they believe the guide would prevent a recurrence of their particular issue. Also note that even familiar venues can change, fantastic restaurants can turn into striptease bars, the local red light district can shift to a different street, the kosher supermarket could be bought by an Egyptian family and turn into a halal market. And new attendees do pop up from time to time. Even a familiar venue can benefit from a guide. Since yours is native I am obviously in the wrong. On this I disagree. English is a difficult language for natives to speak because most of them lack the understanding of other languages which is necessary to fully comprehend the meaning of a large part of the English vocabulary. When I started using the Internet back in the early 90s I was amazed to find that I could identify native English speakers in a few sentences. Native speakers of English almost always made spelling and grammar mistakes in every second sentence. If someone wrote grammatically correct English they were almost certainly from Northern Europe (Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany, Austria). Because of this, in the absence of other evidence, I would assume that you are right and the native speaker is not. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 15 Sep 2010, at 22:09, Michael Dillon wrote: Perhaps some additional effort needs to be made to provide guidance to attendees so that, for instance, everyone attending a Maastricht event knows that there is a free bus pass, it is 5 minutes to a choice of restaurants, someone has tested it during the lunch break hours and it is an easy round trip without being late, and so on. Given the number of IETF attendees[1] I repeatedly saw at the bus stops that were visible from one of the MECC Hotel entrances I think the free bus pass was advertised pretty well, OK I think the timetables were only in Dutch but I'm sure the Concierge could have assisted and as mentioned all the drivers (and every Dutch person I've ever met) spoke good English. One suggestion for Beijing where the level of English with bus/taxi drivers etc will be low maybe to publish a page linked from the main meeting page with something like Can you please take me to the Shangri-La Hotel in Chinese so attendees can just print it out and hand it to the driver when they land at the airport (although a quick search reveals many free online translators I suspect this could catch a few people out). [1] At least enough people to fill two buses. Ben ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: All these discussions about meeting venues
Hi, One suggestion for Beijing where the level of English with bus/taxi drivers etc will be low maybe to publish a page linked from the main meeting page with something like Can you please take me to the Shangri-La Hotel in Chinese so attendees can just print it out and hand it to the driver when they land at the airport (although a quick search reveals many free online translators I suspect this could catch a few people out). If you look, you'll find an info card on the hotel web page, with a map and names written in english and chinese. It is always good to have a map, in case the driver doesn't know the place based on the address. Also, if you want to go somewhere from to hotel, my experience is that the hotel staff is always very willing and helpful to write down the name of the place where you want to go in chinese, and/or even explain to the taxi driver where you want to go. Regards, Christer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Hello Ben, You wrote: One suggestion for Beijing where the level of English with bus/taxi drivers etc will be low maybe to publish a page linked from the main meeting page with something like Can you please take me to the Shangri-La Hotel in Chinese so attendees can just print it out and hand it to the driver when they land at the airport (although a quick search reveals many free online translators I suspect this could catch a few people out). This is what I always do when I travel to China: Ask a colleague to send me an email with the name *and* address of the hotel, or the meeting place. I print this and take it with me to show the taxi driver so he knows where to go. For this meeting it could be put as a page on the meeting website for everybody to print. Also note the following: always take one of the green/yellow colored taxis (if you want to pay the normal rate). http://autonews.gasgoo.com/resource/editor/taxi.jpg At the airport go to the taxirank outside and take one of these taxis. *DON't* be fooled by the crowd inside the terminal that tries to offer you taxi ride . Cheers, Huub. -- Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Also, once you are in the hotel, the concierge can give you a card with directions to where you are going (once you tell him/her) and on the flip side are the directions to the hotel in Chinese. This is very common in China/Taiwan/Hong Kong. A very useful tool. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Huub van Helvoort wrote: This is what I always do when I travel to China: Ask a colleague to send me an email with the name *and* address of the hotel, or the meeting place. I print this and take it with me to show the taxi driver so he knows where to go. For this meeting it could be put as a page on the meeting website for everybody to print. Also note the following: always take one of the green/yellow colored taxis (if you want to pay the normal rate). http://autonews.gasgoo.com/resource/editor/taxi.jpg At the airport go to the taxirank outside and take one of these taxis. *DON't* be fooled by the crowd inside the terminal that tries to offer you taxi ride . Cheers, Huub. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Important linguistic note: If we go to the same places over and over, it will interfere with our habit of referring to meetings by location, e.g., If you'll recall, we agreed at the Anaheim meeting that --Richard On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Fleischman, Eric wrote: Dave Crocker wrote: But, Fred, the problem really is with having such a varied population of attendees and then experimenting with new venues every time. This guarantees problems, because the varied population means that there is a complex set of requirements. No, all of the issues cannot be anticipated, nevermind resolved. However a resource-rich venue that is visited repeatedly means that the choices are much greater and that a learning curve can develop. I strongly resonate with this insight. The IETF has repeatedly returned to certain sites many times. Not all of them are desirable -- note, for example, Minneapolis in winter. However, the fact that we have been to those sites many times have made them a known entity which has fostered productive work. On the other hand, novel sites are interesting, enable new people to attend, show support for different language groups, and foster memorable events (tourism). The question for the group to decide is what are we trying to accomplish and what venues best assist us attaining our goals. Best wishes, --Eric PS: For those who note that it has been a long time since I have attended an IETF, let me merely note that I attend every IETF that is in Vancouver and that remote site locations impact my ability to attend. ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 9/13/2010 2:52 PM, Fred Baker wrote: What I find irritating with these discussions What I find irritating with these discussions is the tendency to get irritated. The other thing that is irritating is the tendency to dismiss or attack serious efforts to make serious comments. The nature of the IETF is that our openness guarantees a very poor signal to noise ratio. Folks who make silly postings are making silly postings. Silly to attack the IAOC. Silly to attack or dismiss people making serious criticisms. Silly to be simplistic, chauvinistic, ignorant, or the like. Silly to make sweeping assessments. We each have a burden to filter out the noise. Silly postings need to be ignored, rather than used as a basis for dismissing or distracting discussion from legitimate concerns. Maastricht suffered an impressive variety of problems. Worse, some of those problems have become a recurring pattern. As examples, we have had a significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major transportation hubs and/or were distant from local resources such as the usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like. who are (apart from AMS and the IAD) volunteers like the rest of us and put a fair bit of time and travel into getting things as close to right as they Anyone attacking the intention or effort of the IAOC is being silly. Anyone making a serious criticism of specific problems is /not/ being silly. They might be right or they might be wrong, but they focusing on outcomes that can legitimately be viewed as problematic. can get them. We don't, to my knowledge, have anyone of restrictive religious persuasions such as muslims or orthodox jews in the team that does the site visits; there are a number of women involved, however, so I would expect the team to be aware of women's issues. But, Fred, the problem really is with having such a varied population of attendees and then experimenting with new venues every time. This guarantees problems, because the varied population means that there is a complex set of requirements. No, all of the issues cannot be anticipated, nevermind resolved. However a resource-rich venue that is visited repeatedly means that the choices are much greater and that a learning curve can develop. If we want to have these discussions on the IETF list, I would strongly suggest that they be moderated for tone. +1. Does that include expressions of irritation...? People need to find a way to discuss an issue without making statements about a person or set of persons. +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Maastricht suffered an impressive variety of problems. Worse, some of those problems have become a recurring pattern. As examples, we have had a significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major transportation hubs and/or were distant from local resources such as the usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like. Rewinding eleven: Hiroshima Stockholm San Francisco Minneapolis Dublin Philadelphia Vancouver Chicago Prague San Diego Montreal Of these I can name only Dublin as falling into the category which you class as a pattern. I am not saying Maastricht or Dublin did not have problems, I am saying the claim that there is a significant pattern here is over-stating it. Please keep in mind that we have several non-negotiable requirements for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the meeting model won't necessarily change that reality. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I think San Diego was worse than Dublin in that respect. At least in Dublin there were free busses to the city center. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 09/14/2010 12:02:28 PM: [image removed] Re: All these discussions about meeting venues Ole Jacobsen to: dcrocker 09/14/2010 12:08 PM Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Cc: George Michaelson, IETF Discussion Please respond to Ole Jacobsen On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Maastricht suffered an impressive variety of problems. Worse, some of those problems have become a recurring pattern. As examples, we have had a significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major transportation hubs and/or were distant from local resources such as the usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like. Rewinding eleven: Hiroshima Stockholm San Francisco Minneapolis Dublin Philadelphia Vancouver Chicago Prague San Diego Montreal Of these I can name only Dublin as falling into the category which you class as a pattern. I am not saying Maastricht or Dublin did not have problems, I am saying the claim that there is a significant pattern here is over-stating it. Please keep in mind that we have several non-negotiable requirements for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the meeting model won't necessarily change that reality. Ole ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
As examples, we have had a significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major transportation hubs and/or were distant from local resources such as the usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like. Of these I can name only Dublin as falling into the category which you class as a pattern. I am not saying Maastricht or Dublin did not have problems, I am saying the claim that there is a significant pattern here is over-stating it. Please keep in mind that we have several non-negotiable requirements for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the meeting model won't necessarily change that reality. Even if you are unwilling to accept these criticisms when CHOOSING venues, what is wrong with applying some bandaids to fix these problems for those venues where it is an issue. Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. If the hosts or the IETF had operated a 15 min. shuttle service to the restaurant districts from 12 noon to 12 midnight, that would likely have resolved most if not all of the complaints about restaurants. There really needs to be more creative thinking applied to these problems in addition with local knowledge. For instance in some venues it might be better to make bus guides available to take a group on local transit every 15 minutes rather than having shuttles. Far better to identify all the people who have issues, and then collectively brainstorm ways to mitigate the problem without changing the city and hotel used. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Michael Dillon wrote: Even if you are unwilling to accept these criticisms when CHOOSING venues, I am not at all unwilling to accept the criticisms, I was responding to the claim of a pattern. Maastricht clearly had problems, I think that has been stated more than once. Dublin had its own set of problems, but as you say below, there was a bus service to the center of town and there were also a few nearby restaurants near the venue and in the two hotels. I personally had no need to go to central Dublin during that week for dinner. what is wrong with applying some bandaids to fix these problems for those venues where it is an issue. Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. If the hosts or the IETF had operated a 15 min. shuttle service to the restaurant districts from 12 noon to 12 midnight, that would likely have resolved most if not all of the complaints about restaurants. Indeed that would have been a great idea and did not happen because of misinformation prior to the event. There really needs to be more creative thinking applied to these problems in addition with local knowledge. For instance in some venues it might be better to make bus guides available to take a group on local transit every 15 minutes rather than having shuttles. Yes. Far better to identify all the people who have issues, and then collectively brainstorm ways to mitigate the problem without changing the city and hotel used. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. Virtually no attendee had a vehicle ateither of those venues (or many others.) People willing to ride on a bus or pay for a taxi are those with vehicles. The point is that something which is too far away by foot, is probably not too far away if convenient vehicular transport is available. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Dave, I did not say there were not problems with Dublin, I said (and Michael concurred) that the steps taken to mitigate the issues helped significantly. I am not signalling out CityWest as some kind of ideal location for an IETF meeting, far from it. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Ole, This is the sort of comment that does make it seem that the IAOC does not really understand the seriousness of the problems with some sites. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Glen, I had zero expectation that Maastricht would be anything like the city I live in. However, it never crossed my mind to think that the city would be so deserted when I arrived, nor that I would end up on the last train. So, you are correct that i did not come prepared with a list of taxi numbers, but that's because I have never had to do so on any of my many trips to Europe. My expectation, however misfounded you believe it to be, is that the places where business meetings are held, should have facilities suitable for travelers arriving at odd hours from international destinations. Certainly, I have learned a good lesson and I will just rent a car if we ever have cities at smaller towns again. While I may seem to be the only one with these issues, I know for a fact that others feel much the same as I do, they just would rather not be be harangued in the way that I have been by business colleagues. And, it's very, very sad that this hostility gets extended to anyone that might actually have some empathy and is able to actually understand what it's like for someone to encounter the situation that I did. Mary. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: Michael Dillon [mailto://wavetos...@googlemail.com] writes: ... I am really uninterested in discussing the Maastricht situation further except insofar as I think there are lessons in it that have not been absorbed yet. I wonder why an attendee who arrived late was left begging at the train station searching for a taxi. That is a problem that could be solved by the meeting host making it clear how to call a hotel shuttle, or other pre-arranged taxi service with an English speaking driver. Or by the kind of simple preparation that any traveler might make in the face of (ubiquitous) uncertainty; for example, googling Maastrict taxi brings up not just half a dozen taxi services but a handy directory of such, with phone numbers. Of course, using it would mean that the traveler would need to ensure not only that their mobile phone functioned in Europe or that they knew how to use a pay phone but also that they had somehow recorded the relevant phone numbers. Even easier, many hotels have cars that can be pressed into service to pick up arriving guests but that would present the same problems. I do not wish to seem insensitive but it seems to me the major lesson that hasn't been absorbed is that if you go to a foreign city expecting it to be just like your comfy Texas suburb you are sure to be disappointed stressed... ... ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I personally am not asking for a fault free venue, however, I am asking for some very basic things to be considered as part of the meeting venue selection process: 1) Safety: far more easily achieved when the meeting hotels and venue are very close to one another in a city center that doesn't shutdown at 11pm. There should be readily available transportation from the main train station or airport at which most participants will arrive. 2) Food: some of us are on a restricted diet for medical reasons (others for religious or ethical reasons) and it should be possible for us to buy food at a local market on Sundays, which is often the only free time some of us have during the week. The hotel restaurant should be able to handle the number of people that attend the meetings and should be willing to serve food when it has been ordered OR to communicate to the customers that they have shut the kitchen down and no food will be served. And obviously, there were several other areas that caused some of us problems, but if the meeting venue is held in a location that addresses the safety issue, then we likely would not encounter any of those either (i.e., purchasing train tickets, etc.) While no venue is perfect the following venues have been exceptional in terms of meeting the above two requirements: Minneapolis, San Franciso, Paris, London, Chicago, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Vancouver, Seoul Some of the other venues have been a bit more pesky in terms of convenience of food access - e.g., San Diego, Washington, D.C., but those all had workarounds. And, while the majority certainly don't share my concerns because they personally haven't encountered similar issues, there is a minority that does and since IETF is supposed to be an open organization supporting a diverse group of participants, I do not believe these are concerns that should be so readily dismissed. Regards, Mary. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Aug 29, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: when you find those fault free-venues lets use them... It seems that every meeting, we get a diatribe about how the facilities and the venue were awful, and how the IAOC has done a poor job in the selection. I, for one, would be very interested in a list of these fault free venues. ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Michael, So, when a venue is not a mainstream hotel with regular airport shuttle service, it might be good to publish a number that people can call at any time to arrange an English speaking taxi driver to pick them up from the train station. And understand that this service might be called upon at very unusual hours due to travel difficulties. I would think that calling one's hotel (the number should be part of the confirmation info) they should be able to either send a shuttle or call a taxi. This would be a reasonable request from a paying guest. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
in another time and place, we invented killfiles because this class of discussion proves so counter-productive, its better not to see it. I posit that IETF venue discussions map 1:1 onto godwins law. I suggest that we separate consensus over standards from IETF process over venues, and let the IAOC decide on our behalf, flaws and all, where, and when we meet. If we are able to give input to the IAOC, I am more than content for that to happen OFF LIST. We devolve these decisions to others because over time, its proven more workable than mass-consensus. My impression of what some people seem to want, is that their personal constraint-set be applied globally. I've never found that to be a good social principle. While it means excluding some participation, I think that in a meeting cycle like ours, with the issues ours faces, that was always going to happen. So, rather than take one, or five, or ten, noisy and rebarbative people's drive to flood mailing lists with noise, I suggest we accept the consequences of devolving decisions to smaller sets of people, like the IAOC. The best we can hope for, is that the pain is shared around. With over 1000 participants, it is likely that some peoples constraint set will take them out of attendance EVER. Again, while not desirable, its provably already happened. Why this is conflated into a general failure, rather than a very sad, but unavoidable necessary single-point failure I do not understand. I might add that if the excluded party feels this is oppressive, I am sorry. It is not intended to be. But, at some level, sooner or later, you have to be willing to say I'm the problem here, not the remaining 999 people who have lesser constraints We do this all the time, when we elect local officials, at all levels of government. We accept the consequences of a disjoin between what WE want, and what THEY can achieve. its not fair is really really bad, when its one or two voices against the wider community interest. its not fair, but I accept its going to exclude me is far better. BTW, I am already aware I am functionally excluded from many things. IETF unscheduled WG meetings for instance. I do not flood this, or other WG complaining. I accept the inevitable. Please, please, can we stop feeding this pernicious troll-subject. -George ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I think it is important for the IAOC to know when there are issues that they need to address, for example the issue with food appropriate to muslims that came up in Dublin. Personally, when I become aware of such issues, I send a note to i...@ietf.org or iaoc-m...@isoc.org, inform them of the issue, and ask them to address it. What I find irritating with these discussions is the perennial what idiot did this tone. What comes across very strongly is that the people whom we trusted enough to place in positions of responsibility grew horns the instant they entered the role and are now doing their very best to make everyone's lives miserable. It becomes politically correct to respond to any response as insensitive while being completely insensitive to the people in question, who are (apart from AMS and the IAD) volunteers like the rest of us and put a fair bit of time and travel into getting things as close to right as they can get them. We don't, to my knowledge, have anyone of restrictive religious persuasions such as muslims or orthodox jews in the team that does the site visits; there are a number of women involved, however, so I would expect the team to be aware of women's issues. If we want to have these discussions on the IETF list, I would strongly suggest that they be moderated for tone. People need to find a way to discuss an issue without making statements about a person or set of persons. As to food issues, I think the hosts of recent meetings at least have done a pretty good job of pointing people to travel and food options in the host web sites. I find myself wondering, though, if the data should be organized in a different way. If we could get hosts to identify restaurants in the area that cater to muslim (no pork, not even in the kitchen), jewish (kosher rules), and vegetarian (which has multiple meanings), and identify grocery stores where people with medically-driven diets can find appropriate things, that might help. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Fred Baker wrote: As to food issues, I think the hosts of recent meetings at least have done a pretty good job of pointing people to travel and food options in the host web sites. I find myself wondering, though, if the data should be organized in a different way. If we could get hosts to identify restaurants in the area that cater to muslim (no pork, not even in the kitchen), jewish (kosher rules), and vegetarian (which has multiple meanings), and identify grocery stores where people with medically-driven diets can find appropriate things, that might help. Probably a good exercise when the site is first considered. If it isn't easy to collect the information during the initial review, it might raise a flag as to whether the site is appropriate. I have an orthodox jewish friend who when coming to my house for a meal would bring his own meal sealed in foil to be heated and eaten. I'm NOT suggesting that folks with dietary concerns bring their own food, but perhaps if the registration process captured the special dietary requirements, arrangements could be made to have such food procured by the venue. Dave Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Hi David, There is already a field in the registration form for folks to list dietary restrictions. And, there's a document discussing various planning issues associated with accomodating the various diets, which includes discusssion of Fred's point about the hosts providing the information as to where folks can find food to accomodate the various dietary restrictions. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-healthy-food-02 I know that Ole passed the document onto the meeting hosts in Hiroshima and while I know there were good intentions to address the concerns raised in the document, based on the meeting logistics, my guess is that this fell off the priority list. So, the IAOC has been aware of this issue for a while and the secretariat does what they can to accomodate folks that they are aware of (e.g., wg chairs lunch). It's just that the situation is always much more difficult in small towns than large cities and more difficult when the venue is more isolated from the city center. Mary. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Fred Baker wrote: As to food issues, I think the hosts of recent meetings at least have done a pretty good job of pointing people to travel and food options in the host web sites. I find myself wondering, though, if the data should be organized in a different way. If we could get hosts to identify restaurants in the area that cater to muslim (no pork, not even in the kitchen), jewish (kosher rules), and vegetarian (which has multiple meanings), and identify grocery stores where people with medically-driven diets can find appropriate things, that might help. Probably a good exercise when the site is first considered. If it isn't easy to collect the information during the initial review, it might raise a flag as to whether the site is appropriate. I have an orthodox jewish friend who when coming to my house for a meal would bring his own meal sealed in foil to be heated and eaten. I'm NOT suggesting that folks with dietary concerns bring their own food, but perhaps if the registration process captured the special dietary requirements, arrangements could be made to have such food procured by the venue. Dave Morris ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I'm also irritated by some of the offensiveness in the discussion. To me, several issues appear to be accessibility issues, even if the number of IETF Meeting participants affected by them might be rather small. I think it is not appropriate to universally apply a 80/20 good-enough principle when it is about accessibility for human beings. There are issues that deserve a little more consideration than rough consensus. David Morris wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Fred Baker wrote: As to food issues, I think the hosts of recent meetings at least have done a pretty good job of pointing people to travel and food options in the host web sites. I find myself wondering, though, if the data should be organized in a different way. If we could get hosts to identify restaurants in the area that cater to muslim (no pork, not even in the kitchen), jewish (kosher rules), and vegetarian (which has multiple meanings), and identify grocery stores where people with medically-driven diets can find appropriate things, that might help. IMHO gathering restaurant food option information is often part of the normal job of the concierge (at least it used to be in the IETF Meeting hotels 10 years ago, the last time I was on an IETF Meeting). Maybe the IAOC should compile a list of questions for the concierge of potential meeting hotels and send it to them so that they can collect such information ahead of time and without time pressure. Interesting information to collect about nearby eating places would be: - food type/style (chinese, italian, mexican, ...) - availability of specific diets (jewish, muslim, vegetarian, vegan) - hours of operation - seating capacity - whether advance reservation is required - average time-to-serve - walking distance to venue - requirement for formal attire (does anyone remeber Dallas, Dec. '95 IETF and the IETF-incompatible dress code for the Reunion Tower restaurant?) Religious, culturual and purely personal persuasions on acceptable food could be covered to some extent in a questionary for the concierge. Medically-driven diets are likely harder to cope with including this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance I was suprised about the significant regional differences about Lactose tolerance in the world population (being a northern european who drinks a lot of milk). What might be interesting for people on a diet is the availability of acceptable foods in grocery stores and their exact labelling (some labelling might be limited to the local language, especially when it is about medical food (in)tolerance. like Gluten sensitivity) or about regionally predominant logos for certain types of food categories (like kosher or halal) and brands that produce food of these categories. Or stores that are specialized on supplying specific communities or interest groups. Opening hours of nearby food stores during the entire week will also be extremely helpful--including weekends and any public holidays during the IETF Meeting week. (The '97 summer IETF was in Munich, Germany, and Friday was Aug 15th, a public holiday in that part of Germany). I have an orthodox jewish friend who when coming to my house for a meal would bring his own meal sealed in foil to be heated and eaten. There are a number of restrictions on importing food in international air travel (e.g. Europe-US, Hawaii-Mainland), in particular for agricultural products and also for meat. In some reagions, restrictions may even apply to ground transportation (e.g. Arizona-California). -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: All these discussions about meeting venues
Michael Dillon [mailto://wavetos...@googlemail.com] writes: ... I am really uninterested in discussing the Maastricht situation further except insofar as I think there are lessons in it that have not been absorbed yet. I wonder why an attendee who arrived late was left begging at the train station searching for a taxi. That is a problem that could be solved by the meeting host making it clear how to call a hotel shuttle, or other pre-arranged taxi service with an English speaking driver. Or by the kind of simple preparation that any traveler might make in the face of (ubiquitous) uncertainty; for example, googling Maastrict taxi brings up not just half a dozen taxi services but a handy directory of such, with phone numbers. Of course, using it would mean that the traveler would need to ensure not only that their mobile phone functioned in Europe or that they knew how to use a pay phone but also that they had somehow recorded the relevant phone numbers. Even easier, many hotels have cars that can be pressed into service to pick up arriving guests but that would present the same problems. I do not wish to seem insensitive but it seems to me the major lesson that hasn't been absorbed is that if you go to a foreign city expecting it to be just like your comfy Texas suburb you are sure to be disappointed stressed... ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I am very tired.) Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Yeah - we should stop, but you're just perpetrating the mentality that has caused alot of the debate. Unfortunately, folks have mis-interpreted the concerns a minority of us experienced at the IETF (since we are a minority in terms of IETF participation) as a dislike of Maastricht or lack of appreciation for the graciousness of the host. It has nothing to do with either. I personally found Maastricht to be a charming city and the social was one of the best I've attended. But, those two things IMHO have nothing to do with having an effective business meeting that involves a diverse group of people. The concerns raised have to do with the fact that the meeting venue did not satisfy the most basic requirements for a meeting that is attended by a diverse group of people (who unfortunately are in the minority) - access to food for people that are on restricted diets for medical reasons, personal safety and easy/convenient access to the meeting venue (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The fact that we had lots of train hops wasn't that critical (although inconvenient), but I do have issue that the meeting was in city that is not setup to handle international travelers that might arrive at odd hours in the night. I totally understand why the majority don't get why this is a concern for some of us, but to dismiss it because it wasn't an issue you personally have to deal with is the reason this thread has gone on and on. Clearly, the concerns (of the minority) are not considered important to others, which is a sad reflection on an IETF that professes to be an open organization promoting participation from a diverse group of people. Best Regards, Mary. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I am very tired.) Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Andrew Sullivan wrote: Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. While the original post in the train thread may or may not have been unpleasantly whiny, I think some excellent points have been raised and the discussion hasn't deteriorated to such an extent that it needs a moderator. Some really nice places are terrible meeting locations and some places that aren't that well-liked as tourist destinations are excellent meeting locations. Trying to understand the differentiators strikes me as a completely worthwhile exercise. But in the meantime the discussion has thrown some light on the requirements definition process, eh? Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/28/2010 12:54 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue,... A primary requirement for participating in a open environment like the IETF is the ability to apply damping filters, rather than getting distracted by what is often merely noise. The single biggest example of being distracted is tending to class everything as noise and then complaining about the noise. The complaint, itself, serves as another distraction. It gets in the way of serious discussion about legitimate issues. Yes we always have complaints about venues. That does not make all of them silly or wrong. We merely have to look for real patterns of complaints. Some venues have had significant problems. Not merely irritants or points of small inconvenience, but serious deficiencies. Typically, careful venue selection could avoid most or all of these. Maastricht is a delightful town... for tourism. But for the IETF meeting, Maastricht displayed a strikingly large number of serious problems and there seems to be some consensus about this. What is impressive to me is that a venue having displayed so many serious limitations and problems would garner any vigorous defense. Perhaps the largest problem with venue discussions is the failure to identify salient, objective criteria and discuss meaningful implications of the criteria. That basic failure reduces these exchanges to mere expressions of personal preference about a venue. In other words, it makes it a popularity contest. Mike St. Johns' posting: https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=53120tid=1283016769 is quite excellent, for its attempt to describe what he wants from a venue, in terms of participating in a meeting. I suggest we should try to develop some language like his that garners meaningful consensus in terms of convenience, /total/ cost, functionality, reliability, and other core criteria. Convenience covers travel, lodging, food, and other resources local to the venue. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Ah so the salt lake city model where everyone stayed at the same hotel and there was only one bar in town would be ideal... On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote: Hi Hannes, Maastricht is definitely an interesting city and I'm glad I can say I've been there (Aachen was cool too!). But the venue there sucked. It was in the middle of a cultural dead zone (which says something because Maastricht has lots to offer) and the hotels were all scattered around town. My hotel was great and well situated from a city-center perspective (I would consider staying there if I went back as a tourist) but to get to the venue required a 20 minute hike or a bus. Coordination among people to go out to dinner or meet up after dinner was a pain-in-the-ass because everyone scattered out in a 5km radius to freshen-up/stow-bags/whatever. And then there's the multi-stop cab ride back to everyone's dispersed hotels, not very conducive to extra-IETF activities which are helped by close hotel proximity. Yea, I did see my fellow IETFers but that holds true anywhere (if you hold an IETF in city X then there will be lots of IETFers in city X) so that is hardly a positive aspect about the particular IETF venue. Don't take it as a negative about the city. It's the venue in the city and the displacement of hotels that matter. For instance, I've been to San Diego, California, USA for different meetings and some were great and others really sucked because the venue was not convenient and/or in a cultural wasteland or to get to/from there was a pain-in-the-ass. Same city, different conference, totally different experience. Two hops plus a train or 3 hops or whatever may be a negative but to me that's a one-off (actually a two-off since I have to leave too) and I really don't care too much about that. More important, to me, is the overhead required for day-to-day activities during the IETF-- effort to get to the venue from my hotel, how easy is it to find food during the day, what's required to coordinate extra-IETF meetings with fellow IETFers in the city, that kinda stuff. regards, Dan. And yes, I did see alot of my IETF friends again. On Sat, August 28, 2010 12:54 am, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ 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 -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/30/10 8:08 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: Yeah - we should stop, but you're just perpetrating the mentality that has caused alot of the debate. Unfortunately, folks have mis-interpreted the concerns a minority of us experienced at the IETF (since we are a minority in terms of IETF participation) as a dislike of Maastricht or lack of appreciation for the graciousness of the host. It has nothing to do with either. I personally found Maastricht to be a charming city and the social was one of the best I've attended. But, those two things IMHO have nothing to do with having an effective business meeting that involves a diverse group of people. The concerns raised have to do with the fact that the meeting venue did not satisfy the most basic requirements for a meeting that is attended by a diverse group of people (who unfortunately are in the minority) - access to food for people that are on restricted diets for medical reasons, personal safety and easy/convenient access to the meeting venue (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The dutch interpret article 1 of their constitutions as guaranteeing full access to participation in society. Both the rail system and the civic venues are fully accessible. The fact that we had lots of train hops wasn't that critical (although inconvenient), but I do have issue that the meeting was in city that is not setup to handle international travelers that might arrive at odd hours in the night. I totally understand why the majority don't get why this is a concern for some of us, but to dismiss it because it wasn't an issue you personally have to deal with is the reason this thread has gone on and on. Clearly, the concerns (of the minority) are not considered important to others, which is a sad reflection on an IETF that professes to be an open organization promoting participation from a diverse group of people. Best Regards, Mary. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I am very tired.) Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 10:43 AM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: Mike St. Johns' posting: https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=53120tid=1283016769 is quite excellent, for its attempt to describe what he wants from a venue, in terms of participating in a meeting. I suggest we should try to develop some language like his that garners meaningful consensus in terms of convenience, /total/ cost, functionality, reliability, and other core criteria. Convenience covers travel, lodging, food, and other resources local to the venue. An excellent suggestion. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 9:34 AM -0700 8/30/10, Joel Jaeggli wrote: (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The dutch interpret article 1 of their constitutions as guaranteeing full access to participation in society. Both the rail system and the civic venues are fully accessible. In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains multiple times, and several of the stations required me to carry my luggage up and down non-trivial staircases. I wondered at the time how someone in a wheelchair or who had mobility difficulties could manage. I realize these stations were in Belgium, not the Netherlands, so perhaps this explains it. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Invention is the mother of necessity. --Thorstein Veblen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 30 aug 2010, at 20:25, Randall Gellens wrote: In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains multiple times, and several of the stations required me to carry my luggage up and down non-trivial staircases. I wondered at the time how someone in a wheelchair or who had mobility difficulties could manage. I realize these stations were in Belgium, not the Netherlands, so perhaps this explains it. In the Netherlands more modern stations have elevators. Intercity trains have an elevated entrance, so wheel chair users must inform the Dutch Railways of their travel plans so a ramp can be positioned for ingress and egress. The journey from schiphol airport to the Maastricht main station required at least one change, but that one could be done as a cross/same platform change. I haven't heard of any wheel chair accessible planes, though. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/28/10 10:29 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: So, if all you guys (and it's been all guys from what I've seen) would just consider how you would feel if you either had access to very little food (think 4 days without a real meal and subsisting on illegally imported nuts and dried fruit for 4 days) or if your wife/daughters/girlfriends were having to travel alone on a train late at night or navigate a city they don't know alone at nite, then perhaps you'll have a modicum of insight into some of these concerns. [BTW, the information on safety on the host site were certainly not relevant to my personal concerns]. The incidence of rape in the netherlands is about 1/3 that of the city in which you normally live in, the homocide rate is 1/15. certain kinds of property crime are known to be pretty high. By most measures of personal well-being the netherlands is one of the safest countries in the world. You stood at least an order of magnitude higher probability of being accosted or assulted on the street when we were situated in the tenderlion in san franciso, so either you're a fairly bad judge of relative risk (most humans are) or the unfamilar has produced uncessary concerns. As I said in prior posts, I think Maastricht would be a lovely city for a vacation/holiday, but it is a very poor choice for a business meeting. And, actually the scattered nature of the hotels made if far more difficult to interact with IETF friends than it is when the hotels are all close to the venue and there are fewer choices. Regards, Mary. On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Joel, Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women. My guess is that you've never personally been in a situation where you've been on a train late at nite and someone got overly friendly to the point of making you feel very uncomfortable. I guess since the crime rate in Maastricht is lower than other places, it should not have bothered me at all for someone to enquire about what hotel I was staying at and whether I was alone that nite. Fortunately, despite having been enroute for 24 hours, I still had the sense to say I had colleagues waiting for me at the hotel. And, fortunately, there was a cab dropping someone off since the train station was closed and there was no concept of a taxi queue, so I didn't have to walk to my hotel alone. As I said, I travel by myself alot and have never had that sort of problem when traveling to major cities since there are usually alot of other people around and I can just blend with the crowd. The reason I did not have this problem in San Francisco is because the majority of people I would have dinner with in the evening were staying in the same hotel. I stayed in the meeting hotel, as well, thus did not have to return to a hotel somewhere else in case of late meetings. There are also a plethora of travel guide books that let you know what areas are safest. The streets are also well populated at nite - the safety in numbers theory and I NEVER had to walk down a deserted street late at nite. NYC is notorious for crime, yet I am quite safe walking down the street at 9pm or so at nite since there are alot of people around and I am very sensible in terms of being aware of my surroundings. However, I also know that it's not a good idea for me to be wandering any deserted city street at nite by myself. My hometown is considered extremely safe and likely on the same levels as Maastricht, since the incidence of rape is also 1/3 the U.S. national average (google Flower Mound, TX). Violent crime is 1/10th the national average. I'm actually an excellent judge of relative risk. Yet I certainly don't put myself in a situation where I am alone at nite walking down a street that I'm not familiar with. If I have to travel into the city at nite, I never do so alone. You might suggest I have a choice as to whether I attend IETF meetings, I contend that the logistics of the meetings should ensure that folks don't have to deal with these sorts of situations. I do not think I should have to inconvience someone else who has also had a very long day to take an extra 20 minutes, so that they could walk me back to my hotel. I also did not have to travel on a train alone late at nite in San Francisco. While, Glen suggested I needed a better travel agent, AFAIK, travel agents have no control over thunderstorms in the U.S. Midwest, nor do they have any insight into whether someone will encounter flight delays as a result of the weather. In hindsight of course, I should have made plans to just spend the nite in Brussels upon my arrival and then travel to Maastricht the next day. Or, to just bail on my connection from London to Brussels and take the Eurostar (and pay the exorbitant fee for a lst minute ticket and losing my luggage since they would destroy it in Heathrow if I didn't get on the place). [Don't even get into the discussion as to why I checked my bag - that's another whole boatload of whining that has no relevance to IETF meeting planning]. However, having traveled to many places in Europe, including small towns, I've never had this sort of problem, so was not able to anticipate such. Certainly, if I had to travel to Maastricht again, I would be able to plan accordingly (and would just pay the extra money and rent a car). Best Regards, Mary. On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 8/28/10 10:29 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: So, if all you guys (and it's been all guys from what I've seen) would just consider how you would feel if you either had access to very little food (think 4 days without a real meal and subsisting on illegally imported nuts and dried fruit for 4 days) or if your wife /daughters/girlfriends were having to travel alone on a train late at night or navigate a city they don't know alone at nite, then perhaps you'll have a modicum of insight into some of these concerns. [BTW, the information on safety on the host site were certainly not relevant to my personal concerns]. The incidence of rape in the netherlands is about 1/3 that of the city in which you normally live in, the homocide rate is 1/15. certain kinds of property crime are known to be pretty high. By most measures of personal well-being the netherlands is one of the safest countries in the world. You stood at least an order of magnitude higher probability of being accosted or assulted on the street when we were situated in the tenderlion in san franciso,
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/29/10 12:29 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: Joel, Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women. You're right, apparently I can't empathize and therefore I'm not going to try. I would just note that I routinely trave to places where my personal security is an issue, and I take steps accordinly. My guess is that you've never personally been in a situation where you've been on a train late at nite and someone got overly friendly to the point of making you feel very uncomfortable. I've had my wallet taken at knifepoint while getting off a train, in the united states. I'm not sure that constitutes friendly. the issue is awareness of an exposure to risk, we take them every day, the risks you're exposed that result in threats to your person to wandering alone in the netherlands are measurably lower than most other venues we've visisted and I for one am quite tired of you complain about how dangerous it was. You clearly felt uncomfortable in that location onus is frankly on you to take control of your situation insure that your travel situation is as you find necessary. The secretariat, The IAD, the folks doing the survey, the host and your fellow ietf travelers cannot apriori accomiate all of the possible pathways that people might choose to take. Myself, I booked into the conference hotel, and I coordinated my travel plans with colleagues arriving the same day. Probably if you had done the same you wouldn't have these complaints, you would have concluded instead that it was long walk to the Albert Heniji and the shopping districit in the old city... Well sorry, in case you haven't noticed it's little hard to build a modern confernece facility in the middle of a 2000 year city, We get to work with what we have some time. I guess since the crime rate in Maastricht is lower than other places, it should not have bothered me at all for someone to enquire about what hotel I was staying at and whether I was alone that nite. Fortunately, despite having been enroute for 24 hours, I still had the sense to say I had colleagues waiting for me at the hotel. And, fortunately, there was a cab dropping someone off since the train station was closed and there was no concept of a taxi queue, so I didn't have to walk to my hotel alone. As I said, I travel by myself alot and have never had that sort of problem when traveling to major cities since there are usually alot of other people around and I can just blend with the crowd. The reason I did not have this problem in San Francisco is because the majority of people I would have dinner with in the evening were staying in the same hotel. I stayed in the meeting hotel, as well, thus did not have to return to a hotel somewhere else in case of late meetings. There are also a plethora of travel guide books that let you know what areas are safest. The streets are also well populated at nite - the safety in numbers theory and I NEVER had to walk down a deserted street late at nite. NYC is notorious for crime, yet I am quite safe walking down the street at 9pm or so at nite since there are alot of people around and I am very sensible in terms of being aware of my surroundings. However, I also know that it's not a good idea for me to be wandering any deserted city street at nite by myself. My hometown is considered extremely safe and likely on the same levels as Maastricht, since the incidence of rape is also 1/3 the U.S. national average (google Flower Mound, TX). Violent crime is 1/10th the national average. I'm actually an excellent judge of relative risk. Yet I certainly don't put myself in a situation where I am alone at nite walking down a street that I'm not familiar with. If I have to travel into the city at nite, I never do so alone. You might suggest I have a choice as to whether I attend IETF meetings, I contend that the logistics of the meetings should ensure that folks don't have to deal with these sorts of situations. I do not think I should have to inconvience someone else who has also had a very long day to take an extra 20 minutes, so that they could walk me back to my hotel. I also did not have to travel on a train alone late at nite in San Francisco. While, Glen suggested I needed a better travel agent, AFAIK, travel agents have no control over thunderstorms in the U.S. Midwest, nor do they have any insight into whether someone will encounter flight delays as a result of the weather. In hindsight of course, I should have made plans to just spend the nite in Brussels upon my arrival and then travel to Maastricht the next day. Or, to just bail on my connection from London to Brussels and take the Eurostar (and pay the exorbitant fee for a lst minute ticket and losing my luggage since they would destroy it in Heathrow if I didn't get on the place). [Don't even get into the discussion as to why I checked
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I did book into a hotel with colleagues as I noted, but we all had different schedules/dinner plans for the most part. I did not book into the conference hotel because experience in Vienna led me to decide that it was more convenient overall to be in the city center. Also, based on my experience of not getting served a meal I ordered at the venue hotel restaurant, my eating situation overall would have been significantly worse had a chosen to stay at the venue and thus not travel into the city at nite for a meal. BTW, I had one of the best meals ever in Maastricht at Le Courage, but that still doesn't mean the city is a great place for a business meeting. Personally, I don't routinely travel to places where my safety is put at risk. The first and most important step for self defense is avoidance. My participation in the meeting precluded me from avoiding the situations. My point overall is actually quite simple - none of these things are issues if the meetings are held in larger international cities or secondary cities where everything is nearby. We've had plenty of meetings in a variety of locations that satisfy that criteria. My point has been that those should be the top priorities for planning a meeting and the pleasantness of the geographic location, weather, tourism opportunities etc. should not be important factors in selecting a venue. Best Regards, Mary. On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 8/29/10 12:29 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: Joel, Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women. You're right, apparently I can't empathize and therefore I'm not going to try. I would just note that I routinely trave to places where my personal security is an issue, and I take steps accordinly. My guess is that you've never personally been in a situation where you've been on a train late at nite and someone got overly friendly to the point of making you feel very uncomfortable. I've had my wallet taken at knifepoint while getting off a train, in the united states. I'm not sure that constitutes friendly. the issue is awareness of an exposure to risk, we take them every day, the risks you're exposed that result in threats to your person to wandering alone in the netherlands are measurably lower than most other venues we've visisted and I for one am quite tired of you complain about how dangerous it was. You clearly felt uncomfortable in that location onus is frankly on you to take control of your situation insure that your travel situation is as you find necessary. The secretariat, The IAD, the folks doing the survey, the host and your fellow ietf travelers cannot apriori accomiate all of the possible pathways that people might choose to take. Myself, I booked into the conference hotel, and I coordinated my travel plans with colleagues arriving the same day. Probably if you had done the same you wouldn't have these complaints, you would have concluded instead that it was long walk to the Albert Heniji and the shopping districit in the old city... Well sorry, in case you haven't noticed it's little hard to build a modern confernece facility in the middle of a 2000 year city, We get to work with what we have some time. I guess since the crime rate in Maastricht is lower than other places, it should not have bothered me at all for someone to enquire about what hotel I was staying at and whether I was alone that nite. Fortunately, despite having been enroute for 24 hours, I still had the sense to say I had colleagues waiting for me at the hotel. And, fortunately, there was a cab dropping someone off since the train station was closed and there was no concept of a taxi queue, so I didn't have to walk to my hotel alone. As I said, I travel by myself alot and have never had that sort of problem when traveling to major cities since there are usually alot of other people around and I can just blend with the crowd. The reason I did not have this problem in San Francisco is because the majority of people I would have dinner with in the evening were staying in the same hotel. I stayed in the meeting hotel, as well, thus did not have to return to a hotel somewhere else in case of late meetings. There are also a plethora of travel guide books that let you know what areas are safest. The streets are also well populated at nite - the safety in numbers theory and I NEVER had to walk down a deserted street late at nite. NYC is notorious for crime, yet I am quite safe walking down the street at 9pm or so at nite since there are alot of people around and I am very sensible in terms of being aware of my surroundings. However, I also know that it's not a good idea for me to be wandering any deserted city street at nite by myself. My hometown is considered extremely safe and likely on the same levels as Maastricht, since the incidence
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/29/10 2:03 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: Personally, I don't routinely travel to places where my safety is put at risk. The first and most important step for self defense is avoidance. My participation in the meeting precluded me from avoiding the situations. My point overall is actually quite simple - none of these things are issues if the meetings are held in larger international cities or secondary cities where everything is nearby. I recommend you scroll back through your meeting archives to Paris, reread, and reconsider that statement in light of events as they transpired. Tegarding the incident of property crime in paris vs mastricht. I lost equipment out of the venue during the week of setup in the netherlands, this a rare but not entirely unexpected event, normally we expect san francisco for example to be a bigger problem in this regard (and it was during the last nanog meeting held there). mitigating this exposure entirely is infeasible, but if the attrition rate exceedes our ability to replace it then we have a problem. That didn't happen, observably, once the particpants descended en masse the local troglodites went back to their caves. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I was in Paris and was certainly well aware of the issues with regards to theft. Personally, I imagine that emotionally and physically recovering from the theft of personal property (as frustrating and as upsetting as I know I would find that to be) is significantly less traumatic than recovering from a physical, in particular sexual assault. Again, the female perspective has it's own set of issues that has the potential to make a physical attack much more life impacting than it does a male, which might be why there seems to be difficulty in understanding the point I raise. I already have two kids (now teenagers, which may be why I seem to be able to debate ad naseum on topics such as this) and I really don't want to have to deal with a third (or the alternative choice relate thereto which is a choice I personally could not make). Mary. On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 8/29/10 2:03 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: Personally, I don't routinely travel to places where my safety is put at risk. The first and most important step for self defense is avoidance. My participation in the meeting precluded me from avoiding the situations. My point overall is actually quite simple - none of these things are issues if the meetings are held in larger international cities or secondary cities where everything is nearby. I recommend you scroll back through your meeting archives to Paris, reread, and reconsider that statement in light of events as they transpired. Tegarding the incident of property crime in paris vs mastricht. I lost equipment out of the venue during the week of setup in the netherlands, this a rare but not entirely unexpected event, normally we expect san francisco for example to be a bigger problem in this regard (and it was during the last nanog meeting held there). mitigating this exposure entirely is infeasible, but if the attrition rate exceedes our ability to replace it then we have a problem. That didn't happen, observably, once the particpants descended en masse the local troglodites went back to their caves. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 14:29 -0500 Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Joel, Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women. My guess is that you've never personally been in a situation where you've been on a train ... Joel, While I've tried to avoid commenting on the general whining and complaining, I fear that I have to side with Mary on this one. While our weighting factors are different, I think it is the obligation of the Secretariat and the IAOC's meetings committee to find locations at which the people who contribute significantly can have an efficient and productive meeting, with a minimum of distractions from logistical, health, and safety problems. While one can take the position that people who don't find a meeting site appropriate should just not come, doing that changes the profile of people who are invited to participate in the IETF from interested in the improvement of the Internet and (we hope) technically competent and willing to do work to include have sufficient free time to spend extra time traveling relative to other cities in the same region, have no health problems that make one location more attractive than another, aren't women traveling alone or those whose dress is distinctive, don't have problems with air of marginal quality or special food requirements, etc. I think that change would be a considerable disadvantage to the Internet and the IETF; YMMD. I don't expect the Secretariat/ IOAC to cater to everyone's slightest whim and I actually do expect those with special needs to be willing to exert some extra effort, but I also expect that the Secretariat/IAOC efforts will extend to making attendance plausible for as broad a range of active participants as possible. I also expect that those efforts will go beyond believing whatever the would-be host tells the meeting committee. And I believe that, if the IAOC selects an out-of-the-way location (for whatever reason) in which we can't be together in a single hotel or small cluster of closely-located hotels that are readily accessible from a hub international airport, the IAOC and Secretariat thereby take on extra responsibility for being sure that the right information is available and accurate. That extra effort and expectation is, IMO, simply part of the cost of such a meeting -- if the cost of having the Secretariat, IAD, or IAOC do the investigations is too high, then the IAOC needs to decide that the site is too expensive. Sure, we can all do our own checking and trip planning, but I think that, somehow, it is in the best interests of the IETF that most of us spend whatever time we are willing to contribute on substantive work, not trying, one at a time, to track down logistical details (I recognize that some people have corporate or organizational travel departments who can deal with those issues, but think it would be a bad idea to further bias IETF participate toward them). And I find the evidence, via the venue survey and the failure to understand that Minneapolis and Maastricht are very different, that the IAOC doesn't get any of this to be extremely problematic relative to the future of the IETF. Again, YMMD. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
John, I agree 100% with everything you said here, execpt for the part about we don't get it. I don't think I need to go over again why Maastricht was chosen nor elaborate further on the surprises we encountered onsite, so let's just say that we will try to do better next time and move on. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 29, 2010 14:29 -0500 Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Joel, Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women. My guess is that you've never personally been in a situation where you've been on a train ... Joel, While I've tried to avoid commenting on the general whining and complaining, I fear that I have to side with Mary on this one. While our weighting factors are different, I think it is the obligation of the Secretariat and the IAOC's meetings committee to find locations at which the people who contribute significantly can have an efficient and productive meeting, with a minimum of distractions from logistical, health, and safety problems. While one can take the position that people who don't find a meeting site appropriate should just not come, doing that changes the profile of people who are invited to participate in the IETF from interested in the improvement of the Internet and (we hope) technically competent and willing to do work to include have sufficient free time to spend extra time traveling relative to other cities in the same region, have no health problems that make one location more attractive than another, aren't women traveling alone or those whose dress is distinctive, don't have problems with air of marginal quality or special food requirements, etc. I think that change would be a considerable disadvantage to the Internet and the IETF; YMMD. I don't expect the Secretariat/ IOAC to cater to everyone's slightest whim and I actually do expect those with special needs to be willing to exert some extra effort, but I also expect that the Secretariat/IAOC efforts will extend to making attendance plausible for as broad a range of active participants as possible. I also expect that those efforts will go beyond believing whatever the would-be host tells the meeting committee. And I believe that, if the IAOC selects an out-of-the-way location (for whatever reason) in which we can't be together in a single hotel or small cluster of closely-located hotels that are readily accessible from a hub international airport, the IAOC and Secretariat thereby take on extra responsibility for being sure that the right information is available and accurate. That extra effort and expectation is, IMO, simply part of the cost of such a meeting -- if the cost of having the Secretariat, IAD, or IAOC do the investigations is too high, then the IAOC needs to decide that the site is too expensive. Sure, we can all do our own checking and trip planning, but I think that, somehow, it is in the best interests of the IETF that most of us spend whatever time we are willing to contribute on substantive work, not trying, one at a time, to track down logistical details (I recognize that some people have corporate or organizational travel departments who can deal with those issues, but think it would be a bad idea to further bias IETF participate toward them). And I find the evidence, via the venue survey and the failure to understand that Minneapolis and Maastricht are very different, that the IAOC doesn't get any of this to be extremely problematic relative to the future of the IETF. Again, YMMD. john ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 4:03 PM -0500 8/29/10, Mary Barnes wrote: My point overall is actually quite simple - none of these things are issues if the meetings are held in larger international cities or secondary cities where everything is nearby. We've had plenty of meetings in a variety of locations that satisfy that criteria. My point has been that those should be the top priorities for planning a meeting and the pleasantness of the geographic location, weather, tourism opportunities etc. should not be important factors in selecting a venue. I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain.--Lily Tomlin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 15:59 -0700 Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: John, I agree 100% with everything you said here, execpt for the part about we don't get it. I don't think I need to go over again why Maastricht was chosen nor elaborate further on the surprises we encountered onsite, so let's just say that we will try to do better next time and move on. I am really uninterested in discussing the Maastricht situation further except insofar as I think there are lessons in it that have not been absorbed yet. I would feel much more confident about who does and does not get it were it not for Ray's little survey equating Maastricht and Minneapolis. If that difference (fairly significant international airport with good connections from several others, easy and fairly quick transport from airport to hotel, in-hotel meeting in hotel large enough to accommodate most of us, several other hotels within easy walking distance, a large variety of nearby eating places, ... versus none of the above) wasn't painfully clear long before the survey was sent out, then _someone_ doesn't get it. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 6:12 PM -0400 8/29/10, John C Klensin wrote: While our weighting factors are different, I think it is the obligation of the Secretariat and the IAOC's meetings committee to find locations at which the people who contribute significantly can have an efficient and productive meeting, with a minimum of distractions from logistical, health, and safety problems. While one can take the position that people who don't find a meeting site appropriate should just not come, doing that changes the profile of people who are invited to participate in the IETF from interested in the improvement of the Internet and (we hope) technically competent and willing to do work to include have sufficient free time to spend extra time traveling relative to other cities in the same region, have no health problems that make one location more attractive than another, aren't women traveling alone or those whose dress is distinctive, don't have problems with air of marginal quality or special food requirements, etc. It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work. I don't expect the Secretariat/ IOAC to cater to everyone's slightest whim and I actually do expect those with special needs to be willing to exert some extra effort, but I also expect that the Secretariat/IAOC efforts will extend to making attendance plausible for as broad a range of active participants as possible. I would have thought this to be obvious, but from the comments in Maastricht and here, it's not. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- For best results, be sure to double clutch when you paradigm shift. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I agree. Unfortunate comparison of two cities. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 29, 2010 15:59 -0700 Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: John, I agree 100% with everything you said here, execpt for the part about we don't get it. I don't think I need to go over again why Maastricht was chosen nor elaborate further on the surprises we encountered onsite, so let's just say that we will try to do better next time and move on. I am really uninterested in discussing the Maastricht situation further except insofar as I think there are lessons in it that have not been absorbed yet. I would feel much more confident about who does and does not get it were it not for Ray's little survey equating Maastricht and Minneapolis. If that difference (fairly significant international airport with good connections from several others, easy and fairly quick transport from airport to hotel, in-hotel meeting in hotel large enough to accommodate most of us, several other hotels within easy walking distance, a large variety of nearby eating places, ... versus none of the above) wasn't painfully clear long before the survey was sent out, then _someone_ doesn't get it. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Aug 29, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Randall Gellens wrote: At 6:12 PM -0400 8/29/10, John C Klensin wrote: While our weighting factors are different, I think it is the obligation of the Secretariat and the IAOC's meetings committee to find locations at which the people who contribute significantly can have an efficient and productive meeting, with a minimum of distractions from logistical, health, and safety problems. While one can take the position that people who don't find a meeting site appropriate should just not come, doing that changes the profile of people who are invited to participate in the IETF from interested in the improvement of the Internet and (we hope) technically competent and willing to do work to include have sufficient free time to spend extra time traveling relative to other cities in the same region, have no health problems that make one location more attractive than another, aren't women traveling alone or those whose dress is distinctive, don't have problems with air of marginal quality or special food requirements, etc. It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work. Based on my observation of and participation in the meeting selection process, the IAOC is (and has been throughout its existence) strongly weighted towards arranging meetings for those who want to do work. Touristic aspects hardly enter in. Regards Marshall I don't expect the Secretariat/ IOAC to cater to everyone's slightest whim and I actually do expect those with special needs to be willing to exert some extra effort, but I also expect that the Secretariat/IAOC efforts will extend to making attendance plausible for as broad a range of active participants as possible. I would have thought this to be obvious, but from the comments in Maastricht and here, it's not. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- For best results, be sure to double clutch when you paradigm shift. ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 7:23 PM -0400 8/29/10, Marshall Eubanks wrote: It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work. Based on my observation of and participation in the meeting selection process, the IAOC is (and has been throughout its existence) strongly weighted towards arranging meetings for those who want to do work. Touristic aspects hardly enter in. In various discussions prior to, during, and after Maastricht, my impression is that any complaint was dismissed with expressions of how delightful the city is. I apologize for allowing this impression to color my idea of the actual site selection process. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- Donald Knuth ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Uhm, no. If someone wants to put a little salt in their soup do you suggest that the whole shaker be poured into the bowl? Taking a position to an absurd extreme is fallacious. Dan. On Sun, August 29, 2010 5:21 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Ah so the salt lake city model where everyone stayed at the same hotel and there was only one bar in town would be ideal... On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote: Hi Hannes, Maastricht is definitely an interesting city and I'm glad I can say I've been there (Aachen was cool too!). But the venue there sucked. It was in the middle of a cultural dead zone (which says something because Maastricht has lots to offer) and the hotels were all scattered around town. My hotel was great and well situated from a city-center perspective (I would consider staying there if I went back as a tourist) but to get to the venue required a 20 minute hike or a bus. Coordination among people to go out to dinner or meet up after dinner was a pain-in-the-ass because everyone scattered out in a 5km radius to freshen-up/stow-bags/whatever. And then there's the multi-stop cab ride back to everyone's dispersed hotels, not very conducive to extra-IETF activities which are helped by close hotel proximity. Yea, I did see my fellow IETFers but that holds true anywhere (if you hold an IETF in city X then there will be lots of IETFers in city X) so that is hardly a positive aspect about the particular IETF venue. Don't take it as a negative about the city. It's the venue in the city and the displacement of hotels that matter. For instance, I've been to San Diego, California, USA for different meetings and some were great and others really sucked because the venue was not convenient and/or in a cultural wasteland or to get to/from there was a pain-in-the-ass. Same city, different conference, totally different experience. Two hops plus a train or 3 hops or whatever may be a negative but to me that's a one-off (actually a two-off since I have to leave too) and I really don't care too much about that. More important, to me, is the overhead required for day-to-day activities during the IETF-- effort to get to the venue from my hotel, how easy is it to find food during the day, what's required to coordinate extra-IETF meetings with fellow IETFers in the city, that kinda stuff. regards, Dan. And yes, I did see alot of my IETF friends again. On Sat, August 28, 2010 12:54 am, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ 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 -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 06:31 PM 8/29/2010, Randall Gellens wrote: At 7:23 PM -0400 8/29/10, Marshall Eubanks wrote: It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work. Based on my observation of and participation in the meeting selection process, the IAOC is (and has been throughout its existence) strongly weighted towards arranging meetings for those who want to do work. Touristic aspects hardly enter in. In various discussions prior to, during, and after Maastricht, my impression is that any complaint was dismissed with expressions of how delightful the city is. got that impression a few times too, which I didn't like ... james I apologize for allowing this impression to color my idea of the actual site selection process. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- Donald Knuth ___ 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
All these discussions about meeting venues
Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
+1 And thanks to the IAOC with putting up with the abuse every single time. --Richard On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Speaking from personal experience and having been attending IETF meetings since 1998, I have never encountered the number of issues at a meeting location I did at Maastricht. The only other venue that came close was Dublin and that was due to not having access to food that I could eat at the venue during lunch. I can imagine the number of complaints folks would see if there was no food for lunch for anyone at the venue (and no cookies at the breaks). These are the only times I have *ever* raised a single complaint on the mailing lists about venues. I had no issues at all with other venues that I couldn't manage on my own in these regards. So, statistically, I have personally been pleased with the choice of venues for 2/36 meetings (i.e., 95+% of the venues at which I have attended meetings) and fully agree there is no perfect choice. I travel alone alot for leisure and business and Maastricht has been the only venue that I have had any concerns at all - starting with an overly friendly local on the last train to Maastricht on the Saturday nite (the last one btw) I arrived. As I said in a previous post, I realize these concerns only apply to a minority, but I do think they are valid concerns for the IAOC to consider. If they choose not to, then I believe that re-enforces the impression that IETF does not encourage participation from a diverse set of individuals. So, if all you guys (and it's been all guys from what I've seen) would just consider how you would feel if you either had access to very little food (think 4 days without a real meal and subsisting on illegally imported nuts and dried fruit for 4 days) or if your wife/daughters/girlfriends were having to travel alone on a train late at night or navigate a city they don't know alone at nite, then perhaps you'll have a modicum of insight into some of these concerns. [BTW, the information on safety on the host site were certainly not relevant to my personal concerns]. As I said in prior posts, I think Maastricht would be a lovely city for a vacation/holiday, but it is a very poor choice for a business meeting. And, actually the scattered nature of the hotels made if far more difficult to interact with IETF friends than it is when the hotels are all close to the venue and there are fewer choices. Regards, Mary. On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ 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
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 12:29 PM -0500 8/28/10, Mary Barnes wrote: As I said in prior posts, I think Maastricht would be a lovely city for a vacation/holiday, but it is a very poor choice for a business meeting. And, actually the scattered nature of the hotels made if far more difficult to interact with IETF friends than it is when the hotels are all close to the venue and there are fewer choices. Absolutely. A city can be wonderful and charming (and excellent for personal travel) but also a poor choice for an IETF. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. --Woody Allen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Hi Hannes, Maastricht is definitely an interesting city and I'm glad I can say I've been there (Aachen was cool too!). But the venue there sucked. It was in the middle of a cultural dead zone (which says something because Maastricht has lots to offer) and the hotels were all scattered around town. My hotel was great and well situated from a city-center perspective (I would consider staying there if I went back as a tourist) but to get to the venue required a 20 minute hike or a bus. Coordination among people to go out to dinner or meet up after dinner was a pain-in-the-ass because everyone scattered out in a 5km radius to freshen-up/stow-bags/whatever. And then there's the multi-stop cab ride back to everyone's dispersed hotels, not very conducive to extra-IETF activities which are helped by close hotel proximity. Yea, I did see my fellow IETFers but that holds true anywhere (if you hold an IETF in city X then there will be lots of IETFers in city X) so that is hardly a positive aspect about the particular IETF venue. Don't take it as a negative about the city. It's the venue in the city and the displacement of hotels that matter. For instance, I've been to San Diego, California, USA for different meetings and some were great and others really sucked because the venue was not convenient and/or in a cultural wasteland or to get to/from there was a pain-in-the-ass. Same city, different conference, totally different experience. Two hops plus a train or 3 hops or whatever may be a negative but to me that's a one-off (actually a two-off since I have to leave too) and I really don't care too much about that. More important, to me, is the overhead required for day-to-day activities during the IETF-- effort to get to the venue from my hotel, how easy is it to find food during the day, what's required to coordinate extra-IETF meetings with fellow IETFers in the city, that kinda stuff. regards, Dan. And yes, I did see alot of my IETF friends again. On Sat, August 28, 2010 12:54 am, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ 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
