Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Dave CROCKER]

On 8/30/2010 10:53 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF meetings are
designed for people who have:

* hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is largely no object


As someone who frequently pays for IETF travel out of my own pocket, I can
assure you that this is not true for me. Ditto for meeting and travel time
sinks.



Since my note specifically challenged the tendency to indulge in personal 
anecdotes, I can't guess why you responded with a personal perspective. Worse, 
it appears to have had nothing to do with the point I was making.


Since you are on the IAOC, your posting is particularly confusing.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:17:20AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> We really need to get these surveys produced by someone with training in 
> survey design.

Or stop using the surveys.  It isn't clear to me that the surveys are
a good idea at all, not just because of sampling biases and survey
design issues, but because they may lead to apparent statements of
preference that don't conform to the general principles that ought to
undergird IAOC decisions.

Surveys are a good way to make a decision look democratic, but there
are well-known and serious problems with collective preference
expression.  (If you don't believe this, you might start by looking up
Kenneth Arrow, whose exploration of this issue is the most famous.
There's a large body of work around this general topic, however.)

If we have general principles for venue selection (for instance), then
asking people to complete a survey is not the right thing to do:
either a given site can be shown to conform to the venue selection
principles, or it can't.  If it does conform, then a survey might
actually reveal a collective "preference" to go elsewhere, but that
would not be a rational preference.  (I wonder in fact whether the
decision to go to Québec will turn out this way.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Donald Eastlake]

It depends what you want to do. Technical participation in a working
group by email works pretty well. But if you want to talk in person to
WG chairs of ADs or the IANA or RFC Editor staff or be eligible for
NomCom or have more impact at BoFs, etc., being there is important.
See also RFC 4144.

Donald

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Doug Ewell  wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks  wrote:
>
>> However, "90% of life consists of simply showing up," and that is
>> especially true for the IETF; to participate, you have to show up,
>> and that requires travel.
>
> I'll have to keep this in mind the next time I feel tempted to
> participate in a WG on the belief that mailing-list-only participation
> is important to the IETF.  I am neither funded by my company to go on
> round-the-world junkets, nor wealthy enough to afford them
> out-of-pocket.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­
>
>
> ___
> 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: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Doug Ewell]

Marshall Eubanks  wrote:

> However, "90% of life consists of simply showing up," and that is
> especially true for the IETF; to participate, you have to show up,
> and that requires travel.

I'll have to keep this in mind the next time I feel tempted to
participate in a WG on the belief that mailing-list-only participation
is important to the IETF.  I am neither funded by my company to go on
round-the-world junkets, nor wealthy enough to afford them
out-of-pocket.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 30 aug 2010, at 19:57, Randall Gellens wrote:

>>> 8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa?
>>> 9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America?

> Like the question on an earlier survey about Quebec City, I think it requires 
> more information and more individual research to have a good answer.  Which 
> venue in which city?  How hard is it to get to the city and venue?

Basically the only thing the survey gives us is how many people would never go 
to a meeting on those continents regardless of the particular circumstances. 
There wasn't even a "why not".

A few months ago the IEEE had its ICC conference in Cape Town. I believe around 
800 people attended. For me this was about 13 hours of flying (MAD-AMS-CPT), 
although there was no timezone change. For someone from North America that 
would probably be a lot longer. My flight was affordable, but only available 
during weekends so I was forced to stay a few extra days. I would say that the 
security situation in Cape Town was barely acceptable, the mobile phone 
infrastructure wasn't acceptable at all (almost impossible to make 
international calls over the mobile network, including calls to colleagues also 
in Cape Town) and internet access was also a huge problem but presumably the 
IETF or host would take care of that if we were to meet in such a place. If 
things are so problematic in the safer of the two biggest cities of the richest 
country of the continent I can't imagine the IETF having a succesful meeting 
elsewhere on the continent. Of course I can't know for sure after only vi
 siting one city in Africa once.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens]

At 10:17 AM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:


 From the survey:


 2. Meeting Preferences

 1. It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to:
 It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to:

  > Very unimportant

 Slides


 What does "slides" mean?  I'm guessing it's an extraneous entry, 
since it throws off the apparent model of a balanced 5-choice set 
of responses.


I took it to mean "depends on other factors" but wasn't at all sure. 
The problem is that most of the questions had no clear answer in 
isolation, but depended on other factors.




 2. Do you prefer a meeting in a gateway city,


 I believe the underlying problem with this question, as 
demonstrated by the postings about it so far, is the lack of 
consistent criteria for defining "gateway" and "secondary".


 I'll offer the view that a "gateway" city is a principle hub of 
international air travel, while a "secondary" city should have at 
least some international air access.  I think that's a useful 
distinction, but it means that more than one of the examples of 
secondary, in the survey, really would be classed as tertiary or 
worse, and there's a reasonable chance that Vancouver would count 
as primary.


From an air travel point of view, Vancouver is a gateway.  There are 
non-stop flights on multiple major carriers within multiple alliances 
to multiple cities on multiple continents.  It's commonly used as a 
transfer point.  However, I'm not aware of any major carrier that 
uses it as a primary hub (e.g., LAX, DFW, ORD, JFK, LHR, AMS, HKG), 
so if this is the criteria then it doesn't qualify.




 8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa?
 9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America?


Like the question on an earlier survey about Quebec City, I think it 
requires more information and more individual research to have a good 
answer.  Which venue in which city?  How hard is it to get to the 
city and venue?  Could I get an airfare that my company would 
approve?  Would we be in a central facility with a lot nearby, or 
would we be scattered around?  (I would personally want to know what 
the rules are for smoking, but I understand only a few other 
participants would care.)


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
Nice guys finish last, but we get to sleep in.  --Evan Davis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
>> At the risk of turning this into a string of competing anectdotes
> 
> 
> It turned into that long ago.  In terms of the tone in these discussions, 
> folk continue to believe that their personal experiences are relevant for 
> deciding logistics policy in choosing IETF meetings.
> 
> Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample of what is 
> typically touted as the target population of IETF attendees.
> 
> The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF meetings are designed 
> for people who have:
> 
>  * hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is largely no object

As someone who frequently pays for IETF travel out of my own pocket, I can 
assure you that this is not true for me.
Ditto for meeting and travel time sinks. 

However, "90% of life consists of simply showing up," and that is especially 
true for the IETF; to participate, you have to show up, and that requires 
travel. 

Regards
Marshall

>  * extensive travel experience   -- therefore accepting requirements
> to handle complex travel details
>  * frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous, 1/2-day incremental
> time and cost doesn't mean much
>  * a full week at the meeting-- so remote locations have minor
> impact
>  * a desire to use meetings for tourism  -- which is more important than venue
> convenience or reliability
>  * complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this category
> 
> "Lack of empathy" is typically being demonstrated by overt hostility, but 
> certainly dismissive handwaves.  The concerns of others simply do not matter 
> and are to be classed as petty, naive, or the like.
> 
> It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic, particular for a 
> community that has been predicated on diversity and inclusiveness.
> 
> At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its community culture as 
> being tailored for well-funded professional meeting goers...
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> ___
> 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: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens]

At 1:46 PM +0200 8/30/10, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

 Although I'm from the Netherlands I had never really visited 
Maastricht before, and I must say it's a very nice city. I'm 
looking forward to going back for a repeat visit.


I think most people liked Maastricht as a city.  I can't think of 
anyone who said Maastricht as a city was ugly or smelled bad or had 
rude people.  There are a lot of truly delightful cities that would 
be great places to visit but are not good choices for an IETF.


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
Reporter (to Mahatma Gandhi): Mr Gandhi, what do you think of
Western Civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[John C Klensin]

+1 on all of the analysis/ observations below.  Couldn't say it
better myself and have tried.

   john

--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 17:10 -0700 Dave CROCKER
 wrote:

> 
>> At the risk of turning this into a string of competing
>> anectdotes
> 
> 
> It turned into that long ago.  In terms of the tone in these
> discussions, folk continue to believe that their personal
> experiences are relevant for deciding logistics policy in
> choosing IETF meetings.
> 
> Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample
> of what is typically touted as the target population of IETF
> attendees.
> 
> The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF
> meetings are designed for people who have:
> 
>* hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is
> largely no object
>* extensive travel experience   -- therefore
> accepting requirements
>   to handle
> complex travel details
>* frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous,
> 1/2-day incremental
>   time and cost
> doesn't mean much
>* a full week at the meeting-- so remote
> locations have minor
>   impact
>* a desire to use meetings for tourism  -- which is more
> important than venue
>   convenience or
> reliability
>* complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this
> category
> 
> "Lack of empathy" is typically being demonstrated by overt
> hostility, but certainly dismissive handwaves.  The concerns
> of others simply do not matter and are to be classed as petty,
> naive, or the like.
> 
> It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic,
> particular for a community that has been predicated on
> diversity and inclusiveness.
> 
> At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its
> community culture as being tailored for well-funded
> professional meeting goers...
> 
> d/




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens]

At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:


 I agree 100% that the question is pretty
 useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
 of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
 take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
 difference IMHO.


It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them 
out and doing them, plus elapsed time.




  I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
 responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
 many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
 and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
 would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
  that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
 7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
 ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
 in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
 Internet.


A good observation.  It's been perplexing how many people seem to 
prefer what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for 
the core purpose.  I think your explanation makes sense: some people 
go for only a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectability to uninformed opinion.   --John Lawton
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens]

At 4:23 PM -0400 8/27/10, Michael StJohns wrote:

 I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and 
specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat 
stacking the deck.


I agree!  They are totally different in ease of access and 
availability of co-located hotel and meeting space.


 What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both 
formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of 
having a good technical discussion with random people at pretty 
much any time of the day or night - that's my view of what has 
contributed to the IETF's success over the years. (Although the 
marathon session for the first draft of the Host Requirements 
document was probably stretching it) That generally means a central 
large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel 
food and drink  in close proximity.


Yes, very well put.  I attend an IETF for the work.  I'll vacation on my own.

I'll add to this that, to me, ability to breathe is extremely 
important.  That means a smoke-free venue and some chance of finding 
a smoke-free restaurant somewhere, plus air pollution that isn't too 
severe.


Although personally I detest going to cold places, and would never do 
so for vacation, I'm happy to go to an IETF in Minneapolis or 
Vancouver in the winter, because it's not hard to get to, the venue 
works well, and restaurants are smoke-free.


 With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting 
off an international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto 
a train for 2-5 hours somewhat worrisome.  I spent more time online 
for Maastricht trying to research how to get to Maastricht that I 
did reading IDs


Me, too, and I enlisted others to help, so it can't all be blamed on 
me being stupid.


 I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to 
say that air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting 
venue has more of what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I 
can't see any way to indicate that on your survey.


Yes.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well.
   --Joe Ancis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Dave CROCKER]

At the risk of turning this into a string of competing anectdotes



It turned into that long ago.  In terms of the tone in these discussions, folk 
continue to believe that their personal experiences are relevant for deciding 
logistics policy in choosing IETF meetings.


Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample of what is 
typically touted as the target population of IETF attendees.


The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF meetings are designed for 
people who have:


  * hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is largely no object
  * extensive travel experience   -- therefore accepting requirements
 to handle complex travel details
  * frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous, 1/2-day incremental
 time and cost doesn't mean much
  * a full week at the meeting-- so remote locations have minor
 impact
  * a desire to use meetings for tourism  -- which is more important than venue
 convenience or reliability
  * complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this category

"Lack of empathy" is typically being demonstrated by overt hostility, but 
certainly dismissive handwaves.  The concerns of others simply do not matter and 
are to be classed as petty, naive, or the like.


It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic, particular for a community 
that has been predicated on diversity and inclusiveness.


At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its community culture as 
being tailored for well-funded professional meeting goers...


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Dave CROCKER]

Folks,

We really need to get these surveys produced by someone with training in survey 
design.  The intent of the survey is quite reasonable, but that the construction 
of it is not.  Survey's are quite sensitive to wording and context. This suffers 
from serious problems with both.



From the survey:


2. Meeting Preferences

1. It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to:
It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to:

> Very unimportant

Slides


What does "slides" mean?  I'm guessing it's an extraneous entry, since it throws 
off the apparent model of a balanced 5-choice set of responses.




2. Do you prefer a meeting in a gateway city,


I believe the underlying problem with this question, as demonstrated by the 
postings about it so far, is the lack of consistent criteria for defining 
"gateway" and "secondary".


I'll offer the view that a "gateway" city is a principle hub of international 
air travel, while a "secondary" city should have at least some international air 
access.  I think that's a useful distinction, but it means that more than one of 
the examples of secondary, in the survey, really would be classed as tertiary or 
worse, and there's a reasonable chance that Vancouver would count as primary.


At the least, please clarify the criteria for secondary.

I should note that it's probably still possible to get useful data from that 
survey question, simply based on respondents' subjective reactions to the terms 
gateway and secondary.  Over the years, including recently, there's been enough 
chatter about the basic distinction to make the specific lists of cities 
secondary.  Just knowing folks' preferences between gateway and 'other' might be 
helpful.  That said, "primary hub" might be a better choice than "gateway"; I 
would not be surprised to find some inconsistency in the meaning different 
people impart to the word.


(There's also some question about sampling for this survey.  The main ietf list 
is widely subscribed to, of course, but not as widely as this survey ought to 
target.  I suggest sending the notice also out to ietf-announce, at the least. 
Perhaps some other lists, such as for nanog, apnic, and ripe...)




3. Do you prefer going back to venues or trying new venues?


As phrased, this question probably biases responses toward 'new', since they 
sound more interesting, and possibly biases it strongly.


Presenting a statement of implications about the tradeoffs -- e.g., risks of 
new, reliability of returns -- would have set the stage for the response much 
better.




5. Would you be willing to pay a higher registration fee to have the meeting in 
a gateway city?


This is a fundamentally biased (distorted) question.  It is predicated on a 
factual assertion that is unsubstantiated and very probably false.


Gateway cities have many more travel choices and many more lodging choices. 
This very probably means that total travel costs can be /lower/ than for 
secondary cities.  At the least, this means that the relationship between cost 
and city 'class' is an open question.


Further, the registration fee is only one of a set of costs.  What is important 
is the total cost, not just the narrow, localized registration fee.


The set of responses provided also is rather oddly constrained.




8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa?
9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America?


This is yet another example of a question lacking foundation.  What is the basis 
for having a meeting in a region that produces few IETF active participants? 
Perhaps the reason is compelling.  But a question like this, lacking any 
premise, can only get a random sampling of spontaneous reactions. And given the 
way humans provide such reactions, the odds are high that repeating the survey 
in a month would produce different answers to this question.


d/















--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 28 aug 2010, at 3:04, James M. Polk wrote:

> I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by saying the 
> comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando, Vancouver, Barcelona, 
> Prague) isn't even remotely close to including Maastricht. Each of the above 
> cities are accessible internationally via air (as in: on intercontinental 
> flights), and from many cities.  Maastricht has a very small airport that I'm 
> not sure you can get to it outside of NL and Germany (I'm sure I'm wrong, but 
> I'm not wrong by much). You certainly can't get to Maastricht from North 
> America or Asian directly.

I've been critical about this beforehand, but let me defend Maastricht a little 
here.

You guys are applying American thinking here. Don't think of Maastricht as a 
town with an unusably small airport, but rather think of it as having a nice 
big airport (that would be schiphol, often called "amsterdam airport") that 
happens to be unusually far away from the city. If you fly into New York ground 
transportation is going to take a good while, too. From schiphol to Maastricht 
is worse, but only by a factor two or so.

Actually much of the confusion regarding travel was because there was more 
choice than usual: people were flying into three airports (AMS, FRA, BRU). From 
Frankfurt and Brussels the train travel was international, and as some people 
have experienced, the combination of international flying and international 
train travel is less than ideal. But apparently people preferred this to flying 
through schiphol. That's their choice. I'm pretty sure that as someone who 
doesn't drive going to the Anaheim meeting would have been more problematic for 
me than Maastricht.

Although I'm from the Netherlands I had never really visited Maastricht before, 
and I must say it's a very nice city. I'm looking forward to going back for a 
repeat visit.

The main thing I ended up disliking about this meeting venue was the location 
of the conference center in the middle of nowhere. Having to travel for at 
least 15 minutes just to buy a soda or a sandwich (outside lunch hours) was 
REALLY annoying.

All in all Maastricht is getting a passing grade from me, but I certainly hope 
that we can do a bit better in the future.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Ole Jacobsen]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> In both the netherlands and japan cases, not figuring it out was an
> option... Once I saw what was available in the netherlands I simply
> arrived at AMS and took the first train in the right direction.
> 
> likewise with hiroshima, figuring out whether I sould be on 08:07 hikari
> or the 08:13 nozomi was way to find grained a level of detail to work
> out until 07:52
> 

At the risk of turning this into a string of competing anectdotes, let 
me tell you what I did for Maastricht. I went to the German Rail 
website (has to be less than 90 days before your travel date to 
PURCHASE tickets, but you can of course check any time): 

http://www.bahn.de/i/view/USA/en/index.shtml

I then looked for trains from Frankfurt to Maastricht with an aim to 
spend most of the journey on German high speed trains (and the fewest 
changes, one was sufficient). I found a route via Endhoven which is 
NOT the fastest, but I picked it anyway. I then ordered the tickets 
for both outbound and return for delivery by mail to the US. In this 
particular case, the "price cannot be deteremined" message appeared 
because of the particular non-German trains involved. German Rail 
wrote me back via e-mail a couple of days later with the complete 
price, and within a week of going to the website (and about 3 months 
in advance of the IETF), I had a first class, round-trip ticket from 
Frankfurt to Mastricht (return via Liege).

Allowing for the train changes, which I agree one should try to avoid 
if travelling with luggage, I would say that my journey to Maastricht 
was no more onerous than to Hiroshima. I do agree, however, that 
Hiroshima had much more to offer as meeting venue and let's not forget 
the extraordinary measures the city itself took to welcome us.

None of this solves Mary's problem of safety and availability of 
groceries on a Sunday, or nearby availability of most things, and I am 
of course not suggesting that such concerns should be dismissed when
selecting a venue. 

Ole
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 8/29/10 1:08 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:
> 
>>   I agree 100% that the question is pretty
>>   useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
>>   of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
>>   take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
>>   difference IMHO.
> 
> It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them out
> and doing them, plus elapsed time.

In both the netherlands and japan cases, not figuring it out was an
option... Once I saw what was available in the netherlands I simply
arrived at AMS and took the first train in the right direction.

likewise with hiroshima, figuring out whether I sould be on 08:07 hikari
or the 08:13 nozomi was way to find grained a level of detail to work
out until 07:52

>>
>>I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
>>   responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
>>   many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
>>   and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
>>   would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
>>that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
>>   7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
>>   ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
>>   in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
>>   Internet.
> 
> A good observation.  It's been perplexing how many people seem to prefer
> what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for the core
> purpose.  I think your explanation makes sense: some people go for only
> a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.
> 
> -- 
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
> -- Randomly selected tag: ---
> #Random Tag

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens]

At 4:23 PM -0400 8/27/10, Michael StJohns wrote:

  I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and 
specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat 
stacking the deck.


I agree!  They are totally different in ease of access and 
availability of co-located hotel and meeting space.


  What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both 
formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of 
having a good technical discussion with random people at pretty 
much any time of the day or night - that's my view of what has 
contributed to the IETF's success over the years. (Although the 
marathon session for the first draft of the Host Requirements 
document was probably stretching it) That generally means a central 
large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel 
food and drink  in close proximity.


Yes, very well put.  I attend an IETF for the work.  I'll vacation on my own.

I'll add to this that, to me, ability to breathe is extremely 
important.  That means a smoke-free venue and some chance of finding 
a smoke-free restaurant somewhere, plus air pollution that isn't too 
severe.


Although personally I detest going to cold places, and would never do 
so for vacation, I'm happy to go to an IETF in Minneapolis or 
Vancouver in the winter, because it's not hard to get to, the venue 
works well, and restaurants are smoke-free.


  With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting 
off an international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto 
a train for 2-5 hours somewhat worrisome.  I spent more time online 
for Maastricht trying to research how to get to Maastricht that I 
did reading IDs


Me, too, and I enlisted others to help, so it can't all be blamed on 
me being stupid.


  I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to 
say that air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting 
venue has more of what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I 
can't see any way to indicate that on your survey.


Yes.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
#Random Tag
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them
 --Heisenberg
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens]

At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:


  I agree 100% that the question is pretty
  useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
  of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
  take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
  difference IMHO.


It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them 
out and doing them, plus elapsed time.




   I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
  responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
  many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
  and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
  would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
   that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
  7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
  ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
  in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
  Internet.


A good observation.  It's been perplexing how many people seem to 
prefer what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for 
the core purpose.  I think your explanation makes sense: some people 
go for only a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
#Random Tag
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by 
perpetually rejuvenated illusions.
   --Albert Einstein
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[James M. Polk]

I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by 
saying the comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando, 
Vancouver, Barcelona, Prague) isn't even remotely close to including 
Maastricht. Each of the above cities are accessible internationally 
via air (as in: on intercontinental flights), and from many 
cities.  Maastricht has a very small airport that I'm not sure you 
can get to it outside of NL and Germany (I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'm 
not wrong by much). You certainly can't get to Maastricht from North 
America or Asian directly.


I agree with everything else Michael and Mary say as concerns, and 
mention that, like Michael, I'm not following as many WGs as I once 
did, however I am a WG chair, and have between 10-14 active IDs (in ~ 
3 to 6 WGs) at any given time - but what Michael described was very 
near what I look for in a venue/IETF destination.


James

At 03:53 PM 8/27/2010, Mary Barnes wrote:

I had the same reaction to the Maastricht comparison to any of those
other cities in terms of equivalency. I added a comment in that
regards to my responses. I agree 100% that the question is pretty
useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
difference IMHO.

 I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
 that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
Internet.

Mary.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michael StJohns  wrote:
> Hi Ray -
>
> I started to take this survey then bounced out of it on the second page.
> This comes under the heading of bad survey design.
>
> I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and
> specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking
> the deck.
>
> What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both formal and
> informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of having a good
> technical discussion with random people at pretty much any time of the day
> or night - that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's 
success over

> the years. (Although the marathon session for the first draft of the Host
> Requirements document was probably stretching it) That generally means a
> central large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel
> food and drink  in close proximity.
>
> With respect to tourism, at different times in my career, I've 
had different

> interests in the IETF.  Currently, I'm down to only a few WGs that I follow
> and as of the last meeting, none that I'm currently contributing to.
> Considering that I'm now consulting as my main activity and paying for this
> on my own dime, I expect that my ratio of tourism to attendance will be
> somewhat skewed towards tourism, but wouldn't expect the IETF to cater to
> that.  My prime interest is still technical interaction and discussion.
>
> With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting off an
> international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto a train for 2-5
> hours somewhat worrisome.  I spent more time online for 
Maastricht trying to

> research how to get to Maastricht that I did reading IDs - and even then
> when I got to the Maastricht central train station, I had no luck buying a
> ticket for Maastricht Raandwyck.
>
> I live in a gateway city and would prefer to go to another gateway city -
> but I realize that's not always feasible and not always the best venue.
>
> I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to say that
> air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of
> what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to indicate
> that on your survey.
>
> To be honest, I don't think I'll find the output of this survey of much use
> in its current form.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> At 03:12 PM 8/27/2010, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>
> All;
>
> Do you have IETF meeting venue preferences?  If so, the IAOC wants to know!
>
> Please take this survey at:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HPLZGJ
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ray
> IAD
> ___
> 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@iet

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Mary Barnes]

I had the same reaction to the Maastricht comparison to any of those
other cities in terms of equivalency. I added a comment in that
regards to my responses. I agree 100% that the question is pretty
useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
difference IMHO.

 I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
 that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
Internet.

Mary.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michael StJohns  wrote:
> Hi Ray -
>
> I started to take this survey then bounced out of it on the second page.
> This comes under the heading of bad survey design.
>
> I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and
> specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking
> the deck.
>
> What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both formal and
> informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of having a good
> technical discussion with random people at pretty much any time of the day
> or night - that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's success over
> the years. (Although the marathon session for the first draft of the Host
> Requirements document was probably stretching it) That generally means a
> central large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel
> food and drink  in close proximity.
>
> With respect to tourism, at different times in my career, I've had different
> interests in the IETF.  Currently, I'm down to only a few WGs that I follow
> and as of the last meeting, none that I'm currently contributing to.
> Considering that I'm now consulting as my main activity and paying for this
> on my own dime, I expect that my ratio of tourism to attendance will be
> somewhat skewed towards tourism, but wouldn't expect the IETF to cater to
> that.  My prime interest is still technical interaction and discussion.
>
> With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting off an
> international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto a train for 2-5
> hours somewhat worrisome.  I spent more time online for Maastricht trying to
> research how to get to Maastricht that I did reading IDs - and even then
> when I got to the Maastricht central train station, I had no luck buying a
> ticket for Maastricht Raandwyck.
>
> I live in a gateway city and would prefer to go to another gateway city -
> but I realize that's not always feasible and not always the best venue.
>
> I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to say that
> air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of
> what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to indicate
> that on your survey.
>
> To be honest, I don't think I'll find the output of this survey of much use
> in its current form.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> At 03:12 PM 8/27/2010, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>
> All;
>
> Do you have IETF meeting venue preferences?  If so, the IAOC wants to know!
>
> Please take this survey at:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HPLZGJ
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ray
> IAD
> ___
> 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: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Michael Richardson]

> "Michael" == Michael StJohns  writes:
Michael> What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with
Michael> both formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a
Michael> good chance of having a good technical discussion with
Michael> random people at pretty much any time of the day or night -
Michael> that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's
Michael> success over the years. (Although the marathon session for
Michael> the first draft of the Host Requirements document was
Michael> probably stretching it) That generally means a central
Michael> large hotel with attached conference space with access to
Michael> non-hotel food and drink in close proximity.

+1

The hotel bars in:
- Minneapolis
- Chicago (sorta)
- DC (all three meetings)
- Atlanta
- Vancouver
- Memphis
- San Francisco (2004)

were very good for this.

The lack of clear canonical bars in:
- Vienna
- Montreal (both times)
- Phildelphia (I think)

were problems.  I reserve judgement on Prague (smoke), and on Pittsburgh
and Dallas, because I can't recall.  The rest I either wasn't there, or
I simply can't recall.

Michael> With respect to tourism, at different times in my career,
Michael> I've had different interests in the IETF.  Currently, I'm
Michael> down to only a few WGs that I follow and as of the last
Michael> meeting, none that I'm currently contributing to.
Michael> Considering that I'm now consulting as my main activity and
Michael> paying for this on my own dime, I expect that my ratio of
Michael> tourism to attendance will be somewhat skewed towards
Michael> tourism, but wouldn't expect the IETF to cater to that.  My
Michael> prime interest is still technical interaction and
Michael> discussion.

+1 on all points here.

Michael> I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis
Michael> except to say that air connectivity is better to
Michael> Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of what I'm
Michael> looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to
Michael> indicate that on your survey.

I also have no problem with Minneapolis, and I really do want to take
the train there... 

-- 
]   He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!   |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video 
   then sign the petition. 


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Michael StJohns]

Hi Ray - 

I started to take this survey then bounced out of it on the second page.  This 
comes under the heading of bad survey design.

I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and specifically 
equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking the deck.

What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both formal and 
informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of having a good technical 
discussion with random people at pretty much any time of the day or night - 
that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's success over the years. 
(Although the marathon session for the first draft of the Host Requirements 
document was probably stretching it) That generally means a central large hotel 
with attached conference space with access to non-hotel food and drink  in 
close proximity.  

With respect to tourism, at different times in my career, I've had different 
interests in the IETF.  Currently, I'm down to only a few WGs that I follow and 
as of the last meeting, none that I'm currently contributing to.  Considering 
that I'm now consulting as my main activity and paying for this on my own dime, 
I expect that my ratio of tourism to attendance will be somewhat skewed towards 
tourism, but wouldn't expect the IETF to cater to that.  My prime interest is 
still technical interaction and discussion.

With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting off an 
international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto a train for 2-5 
hours somewhat worrisome.  I spent more time online for Maastricht trying to 
research how to get to Maastricht that I did reading IDs - and even then when I 
got to the Maastricht central train station, I had no luck buying a ticket for 
Maastricht Raandwyck.

I live in a gateway city and would prefer to go to another gateway city - but I 
realize that's not always feasible and not always the best venue.   

I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to say that air 
connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of what 
I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to indicate that on 
your survey.

To be honest, I don't think I'll find the output of this survey of much use in 
its current form.

Mike





At 03:12 PM 8/27/2010, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>All;
>
>Do you have IETF meeting venue preferences?  If so, the IAOC wants to know!
>
>Please take this survey at:  
>https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HPLZGJ
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ray
>IAD 
>___
>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

Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Ray Pelletier]

All;

Do you have IETF meeting venue preferences?  If so, the IAOC wants to know!

Please take this survey at:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HPLZGJ

Thanks!

Ray
IAD___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf