Subject: Meeting "lounges" at IETF meetings

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:18:50 -0700

Greetings again. Some meeting venues have had insufficient places where five or so people could comfortably gather for informal meetings, while other venues did this just fine. One proposal has been that the Secretariat reserve large rooms for this. Unfortunately, that adds significant cost to the meetings.

Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which is already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting areas where talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be provided for people who really want a quiet Ethernet connection; the cost of those for the Secretariat will be about $25/meeting.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:20:36 -0700

> Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which is already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting areas where talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be…

Sounds good.

I volunteer to collect free headsets from airplanes and put them out
for people to take.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:22:04 -0500

I don't like this idea at all.  For people that aren't staying at the
meeting hotel, the terminal room is often the only place where it is quiet.
 Ear plugs only partially address the problem for those of us with really
sensitive hearing and some folks cannot use those ear plugs (e.g., when you
have an ear infection, which I often get from the air conditioning in these
venues).

Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have adequate space
for both circulating between meeting rooms and for side conversations.
 This hotel was really bad in that respect.  The corridor outside the
Regency rooms was always packed between sessions and getting from B to E
was impossible without bumping into people.  One problem was that people
stopped in the corridor for discussions, which is a normal thing to do at
IETF meetings, but it totally clogged up the hallways and often blocked the
access to the coffee.  This makes me wonder if the folks that choose the
venue discuss the nature of our meetings - i.e., almost everyone is moving
between meeting rooms multiple times a day.  Also, at least half the people
have backpacks and the majority are men.  Thus, the footprint for each of
us is larger than the average conference attendee.   I would suggest for
this next meeting at this hotel to put the refreshments in the open space
on the 3rd floor and put some chairs or tables in the alcoves and along the
wall where they put the refreshments.  Or better yet, reserve one of the
rooms for the refreshments and/or meeting space.  We had that at one of the
recent meetings and it worked extremely well.    I suggest that you could
cut the cookie budget if funds really are the only reason this wouldn't be
done.

Mary.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Greetings again. Some meeting venues have had insufficient places where
> five or so people could comfortably gather for informal meetings, while
> other venues did this just fine. One proposal has been that the Secretariat
> reserve large rooms for this. Unfortunately, that adds significant cost to
> the meetings.
>
> Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which is
> already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting areas where
> talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be provided for people who
> really want a quiet Ethernet connection; the cost of those for the
> Secretariat will be about $25/meeting.
>
> --Paul Hoffman

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:42:53 -0700

On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:

> Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have adequate space for both circulating between meeting rooms and for side conversations.

Just to be clear: you would rather that we pay higher meeting fees in exchange for that adequate space?

> I suggest that you could cut the cookie budget if funds really are the only reason this wouldn't be done. 

That is one way to pay for the extra space; it might not be so popular in this particular crowd.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:13:28 -0500

> exchange for that adequate space?
[MB] Yes. [/MB]

> That is one way to pay for the extra space; it might not be so popular in
[MB]  Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce cookies), BUT
we have had adequate space at previous meetings for which we paid the same
meeting fee, so it seems possible to get space without increasing meeting
fees (and I thought Vancouver was selected as it was deemed a very
moderately priced venue for meetings).   Note, that we did get additional
space on the 34th floor during the week (which I assumed we paid for).
Also, there was a block of rooms on the 2nd floor that we did not use for
our meetings.  [/MB]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:39:37 -0700

i have no need to micro-manage the secretariat.  and i greatly
appreciate the meeting space the secretariat provided on 34f.
and i think they got the message and will sort it out.

randy

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:06:46 -0500

On 03/08/2012, at 2:39 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> i have no need to micro-manage the secretariat.

+1

seems to happen a lot around here...

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:20:17 -0700

On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 14:13 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:

>         > Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have
>         adequate space for both circulating between meeting rooms and
>         for side conversations.
>         
>         
>         
>         Just to be clear: you would rather that we pay higher meeting
>         fees in exchange for that adequate space?
>         
> [MB] Yes. [/MB] 

Just to be even clearer, are you offering to pay those higher fees out
of your own pocket or just to type a larger number into your expense
report?

>         
>         > I suggest that you could cut the cookie budget if funds
>         really are the only reason this wouldn't be done.
>         
>         
>         
> [MB]  Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce cookies),
> BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings for which we paid
> the same meeting fee, so it seems possible to get space without
> increasing meeting fees (and I thought Vancouver was selected as it
> was deemed a very moderately priced venue for meetings).   Note, that
> we did get additional space on the 34th floor during the week (which I
> assumed we paid for). Also, there was a block of rooms on the 2nd
> floor that we did not use for our meetings.  [/MB]
> 
> 
>  
>         
>         
>         --Paul Hoffman
> 
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:27:19 -0700

> seems to happen a lot around here...

symptom of too much free time on hands

randy

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:29:14 -0500

Either one - I'll direct a donation to the Open Internet Endowment for
meeting rooms.  Or, we can increase the fees for legal requests as others
have been suggesting.

If you read the thread, I was responding to the takeover of the terminal
room as a meeting place.  I was trying to be constructive with my
suggestions.  You can interpret them however you want.

Mary.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Glen Zorn <[email-masked]> wrote:

> **
> Just to be even clearer, are you offering to pay those higher fees out of
> your own pocket or just to type a larger number into your expense report?
>
>
>
> BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings for which we paid the
> same meeting fee, so it seems possible to get space without increasing
> meeting fees (and I thought Vancouver was selected as it was deemed a very

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:30:34 -0500

Yeah, I have tons of free time at these meetings.    And, my response was
absolutely an attempt to micro-manage rather than provide suggestions on
how the situation could be better handled (as I don't think taking over the
terminal room is a good idea).

Mary.

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:14:29 -0500

I agree with randy. I've never had an issue finding a place to huddle/meet when necessary at an ietf meeting venue. between the hallways, bar, etc I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.

Tom

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:56:45 -0500

The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing)  is that if you were
attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between
sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your way through the
corridor as many people were having their discussion directly in the middle
of the corridor.  There just was not room in that corridor for side
conversations.  The situation was made worse as that corridor was where
they served the refreshments.   And trying to ask people politely to move
generally had no impact in my experience as people were too engaged in
their conversations.

Mary.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>wrote:

> I agree with randy. I've never had an issue finding a place to huddle/meet
> when necessary at an ietf meeting venue. between the hallways, bar, etc I'm
> not sure what the fuss is all about.
>
> Tom
>
>
>

---

From: Alexa Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:08:09 -0700

Yes, the hallway congestion was a real issue at this meeting, and we are already working on ways to make sure that we manage it differently when we return next year. The refreshments will not be served in those same corridors, as a start. 

We are also working to address the desire for additional lounge areas. It is not always possible, given that our space varies considerably from meeting to meeting, but we are hoping to make it a more permanent fixture moving forward.

Alexa

On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

> The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing)  is that if you were attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your way through the corridor as many people were having their discussion directly in the middle of the corridor.  There just was not room in that corridor for side conversations.  The situation was made worse as that corridor was where they served the refreshments.   And trying to ask people politely to move generally had no impact in my experience as people were too engaged in their conversations.  
> 
> Mary. 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]> wrote:

----------
Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA  94538
Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001
Email: [email-masked]

Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:10:09 -0700 (PDT)

The narrowness of the corridoors, placement of food/drink and all that 
was discussed in our wrap-up meeting this morning, and indeed the 
issues you have raised were indentified as areas for improvement. 
Since we are coming back to THIS hotel, there are certainly things 
that can be done better, and will be done better, next 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: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:20:04 -0500

Thanks!

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]
> >wrote:
> >

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:37:32 +0100

> that can be done better, and will be done better, next time. 

That gives the NOC folks time to figure out how to take
over the elevator system for next time too:-)

S

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:38:06 -0500

Having missed only 2 meetings in 13 years, I can say that no venue 
was perfect, but some were very good. It becomes a case of which 
venues have the fewest "bad" things. I believe this venue was 
exceptional at many things, very good at nearly all others, with the 
bad things being food/snacks served in the crowded hallway and that 
sucky elevator algorithm (which was by far the worst think here).

The crowded hallway we can't change.

We can change where the snacks are served, and I have read that will 
happen for our next meeting in Vancouver here in 15 months.

To me the exceptional aspects far outweighed the bad things - so I'm 
chalking this venue up as one of the best in 13 years of attending 
IETFs, and a *serious* contrast to the Paris venue (which I believe 
was one of the worst - each time we were there, though the city was nice).

However, YMMV

James

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:43:48 +0100

> The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing)  is that if you were attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your wa…

The corridor congestion when food was served was the only minor nit in an otherwise excellent meeting.  The wireless, the facilities etc were all top notch.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:46:28 +0100

On 3 Aug 2012, at 23:38, James Polk <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> To me the exceptional aspects far outweighed the bad things - so I'm chalking this venue up as one of the best in 13 years of attending IETFs, and a *serious* contrast to the Paris venue (which I believe was one of the worst - each time we were there, though the city was nice).

+1

Would be fun to get access to an API for the lifts for next time ;)

Tim

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:06:08 -0400

>>>>> "Mary" == Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> writes:
    Mary> [MB] Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce
    Mary> cookies), BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings
    Mary> for which we paid the same meeting fee, so it seems possible
    Mary> to get space without increasing meeting fees (and I thought

Actually, we were over supplied with cookies, as there were always some
left over, I observed.  Perhaps it was the inability to move around
meant that people couldn't find the cookies. 

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:31:49 -0700

Folks,

On 8/3/2012 3:38 PM, James Polk wrote:
> Having missed only 2 meetings in 13 years, I can say that no venue was
> perfect, but some were very good. It becomes a case of which venues have
> the fewest "bad" things.
...
> happen for our next meeting in Vancouver here in 15 months.

Long before I started serving on the IAOC (last year) it was clear to me 
that the Secretariat & related staff knew/knows how to do their job, 
both in terms of planning and in terms of fixing problems.  My opinion 
hasn't changed in the last year.  Well actually that's not quite true. 
They seem to be a bit better than I thought...

It's not that a occasional suggestions are sure to be entirely 
unnecessary, it's that most of them are... (So, was it wrong that I felt 
a tiny glow of satisfaction at seeing a sign appear about a half-hour 
after suggesting it to them, at the beginning of the week?)

On the other hand, there's a macro-management point that /does/ need to 
fall within the community purview:

      Should we constantly seek new venues or should we prefer returning 
to a small set of them?

The tendency for the last 20 years has been to seek new venues quite 
often.  Our rate of returning has been relatively low.  That means that 
most meeting venues are unfamiliar and run the risk of some serious, 
unforseen problem.  And my own observation was that we have tended to 
suffer roughly one major venue problem a year.

Visiting familiar places means that a) we know the tradeoffs at a place, 
and b) we can tune our use of it.  Visiting new places means we can find 
/better/ places to return to, albeit while also finding worse.  Locking 
down on on a fixed set of venues means we miss these improvements. 
(It's also been noted that returning regularly often tends to get 
degraded performance over time.)

However the tendency of the community has been to express preference for 
the tourism of going to new places.

If we really want venues to function towards some ideal, we need the 
benefit of a multi-visit learning curve.

And it means we stop being tourists.

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 23:24:00 +0000

>And it means we stop being tourists.

Of course holding meetings in a range of locations, some new, also
provides the opportunity to attract new meeting hosts rather than relying
on a small pool of regular hosts. Ultimately, there are pros and cons to
either model and the current model does not seem especially bad (quite the
contrary I think).

And, as they say, 'variety is the spice of life'. ;-)

Perhaps when we the Internet is less dynamic (I hope it is never so) we
could meet in just one city all the time, as I understand some other
standards development group does. ;-)

Jason

---

From: Michael Richardson {quigon} <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:49:35 -0700

I agree with having the terminal room... let's get some signs on the stairs to the fourth floor when we return.
When we return fall 2013, can we move all the break food into the space at the top of the escalator, away from the doors in/out of Regency.
Let's also get a few more couches around the place... the Quebec 2011 big room was awesome, in hindsight.

-- 
Sent from my Android tablet.

Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:25:38 -0400

> From: Paul Hoffman [[email-masked]]
> 
> Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which
> is already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting
> areas where talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be
> provided for people who really want a quiet Ethernet connection; the
> cost of those for the Secretariat will be about $25/meeting.

I agree with Mary here, we really don't want to turn the terminal room
into a talking room.

The problem with the earplug idea is that earplugs don't dampen human
voices to the point where they don't cause your brain to try to track
conversations, because earplugs uniformly cut the volume of both
voices and background noise.  Since your brain's audio processing
system has an excellent AGC (automatic gain control), the recognition
of voices is unimpaired.

Dale

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Aug 2012 03:55:03 -0000

>And it means we stop being tourists.

Depends where.  I would be happy to be a tourist in Vancouver, Quebec,
Paris (assuming we can sort out the Hotel Klepto issue), and/or Berlin
every year.

R's,
John

PS: But not Orlando.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:58:19 -0700

...
> either model and the current model does not seem especially bad (quite the

My note highlighted some tradeoffs, and your note adds to that.  The 
main point is that choices among tradeoffs have very different effects, 
both desirable an not.

If the community wants venues to be reliably excellent, it's not enough 
merely to have excellent staff.  We need to go back to the better places 
and benefit from the learning curve.  This doesn't mean "no new venues" 
but it means fewer.

The influence of choosing sites based on hosts has, in my view, tended 
to work against these functional benefits.[1]  The counter, of course, 
is the benefit having a host can bring, most notably funds.

> standards development group does. ;-)

It's been amusing (not) to hear claims that the IETF needs to wander 
around the world for its meetings, for what is really a marketing 
campaign, to counter some of those other groups... who do indeed sit in 
one city for all of their formal meetings.

Moving around in order to spread the pain of travel among folks who 
actually do the work is one thing.  Moving around to improve public 
relations is quite another.

On 8/4/2012 8:55 PM, John Levine wrote:>> And it means we stop being 
tourists.
 > Paris (assuming we can sort out the Hotel Klepto issue), and/or Berlin

Given the context and content of my note, I suspect that I was not 
referring to attendees' taking advantage of a venue's sightseeing 
opportunities, but rather to a possibly strategic orientation to choose 
different venues in order to /create/ tourism opportunities.  I might 
even have thought that I made the latter focus clear enough, but alas 
didn't word things to bullet-proof against creative misinterpretation.

Sorry.

d/

[1] Shortly before I joined the IAOC, an important paradigm change was 
instituted.  In the past, venues were primarily chosen /after/ getting a 
host, so the host could largely decide where to have the meeting. With 
some regularity, this produced extremely limited choices in sites. More 
recently, the model is to choose the venue and then seek a host.  This 
permits us to get a venue much sooner than we used to, which greatly 
improves our choice of meeting site.  While sometimes creating a greater 
challenge for finding a host, I think the newer paradigm is a vast 
improvement.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:26:16 -0500

On 05/08/2012, at 1:58 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It's been amusing (not) to hear claims that the IETF needs to wander around the world for its meetings, for what is really a marketing campaign, to counter some of those other groups... who do indeed sit in one city for all of their formal meetings.
> 
> Moving around in order to spread the pain of travel among folks who actually do the work is one thing.  

So, let's talk about that. 

I live in Melbourne, and thus must travel for more than 24 hours each way to just about every IETF meeting there is (the "asian" meetings are at best 16 hours away, but often more due to routing). Sometimes, much more.

Three or so locations doesn't spread the pain equitably.

> Moving around to improve public relations is quite another.

You say "public relations", I say it's to encourage participation from a wider range of people, so this doesn't become a self-selecting set of blowhards*. This is a primary condition for an organisation that aspires to set standards, not just a "marketing campaign".

Again, choosing three or so locations ignores large parts of not only the developing world (e.g., Africa, India), but also substantial portions of the developed world with a reasonable track record of participation (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil).

As much as I fear unleashing a mob of cookie-eating, hotel-complaining, detail-fixated, t-shirt wearing, difference-from-America-fearing, beard-wielding, restaurant-bill-splitting nerd-ninjas on my adopted country, I think there are very good selfish *and* unselfish reasons for the IETF returning to Australia, or appearing nearby. And going to Brazil or thereabouts, and India, and (eventually) Africa. Doesn't have to be every year, but once a decade+ is not often enough.

Regards,

* Well, more of one.

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:36:00 -0400

+1 on keeping the terminal room a (mostly) quiet work area.

Rather, let's replicate the Quebec large lounge space if possible (at
all upcoming meetings).

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:54:49 -0700

Hi Mark,
At 12:26 05-08-2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>I live in Melbourne, and thus must travel for more than 24 hours 
>each way to just about every IETF meeting there is (the "asian" 
>meetings are at best 16 hours away, but often more due to routing). 
>Sometimes, much more.

And yet I don't see you complaining about that. :-)  The good news is 
that the IAOC decided to have a meeting in the Southern 
Hemisphere.  The bad news is that it may not be in Melbourne.

>You say "public relations", I say it's to encourage participation 
>from a wider range of people, so this doesn't become a 
>self-selecting set of blowhards*. This is a primary condition for an 
>organisation that aspires to set standards, not just a "marketing campaign".

Yes.

>Again, choosing three or so locations ignores large parts of not 
>only the developing world (e.g., Africa, India), but also 
>substantial portions of the developed world with a reasonable track 
>record of participation (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil).

There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New 
Zealand at the last IETF meeting.  There was interest to have the 
IETF in New Zealand.  I guess that it was considered as difficult to 
convince the cookie-eating mob that it was a good location.

>As much as I fear unleashing a mob of cookie-eating, 
>hotel-complaining, detail-fixated, t-shirt wearing, 
>difference-from-America-fearing, beard-wielding, 
>restaurant-bill-splitting nerd-ninjas on my adopted country, I think 
>there are very good selfish *and* unselfish

:-)

>  reasons for the IETF returning to Australia, or appearing nearby. 
> And going to Brazil or thereabouts, and India, and (eventually) 
> Africa. Doesn't have to be every year, but once a decade+ is not often enough.

The IETF will likely go to Latin America first.  My guess is that it 
might eventually go to India.  If it ever goes to Africa it will be 
more of a political statement than anything else.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:06:12 -0400

On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> enough merely to have excellent staff.  We need to go back to the
> better places and benefit from the learning curve.  This doesn't
> mean "no new venues" but it means fewer.

As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want to return
to?  I get your argument in principle, but it seems to me that there
has been quite a lot of complaining in the past.  The one factor that
seems to me most likely to reduce complaints -- weather -- is
evidently beyond the Secretariat's or IAOC's control.

People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver, elevators
notwithstanding.  We're going to do that.  (I don't understand why the
previous Vencouver venue was less desirable -- to me, these venues
were very similar, and not very far apart.  I note, however, that the
previous two Vancouver visits were near the end of the year, when it
rains all the time in Vancouver.)

People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I presume
it's out.

Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel expense
in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
Should we try to return there?

People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although
afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue.  I note that
the weather was great.  Should we try to return?

I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in 2011, which
was striking to me because very little seemed different to me compared
to our first visit there.  Perhaps this is evidence of the "tuning"
you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance).
But I note the weather was excellent.

Beijing?  I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought that was
an example of a terrible location, but many people seemed happy with
it)?  Hiroshima?  Stockholm?  San Francisco (we thought the crime at
Paris was bad, yet didn't complain about being smack up against the
Tenderloin)?  Or there's the old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we
could do it in March.  The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of
people.  Philadelphia, people complained about expense.  Chicago, too
(combined with hotel renovations).  

That gets us back through 2007.  Which of the venues do you think we
should return to, to which we already haven't returned or planned to
return?  And why? 

For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to any of
those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of them except
Hiroshima, which I missed due to other commitments.  That includes
both Maastricht and Dublin, which were both apparently trials for
large numbers of others.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:23:56 +0200

Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the last meetings.

What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or Sweden, aren't they?

BR
Daniele

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>Sent: lunedì 6 agosto 2012 14.06
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>
>> better places and benefit from the learning curve.  This 
>doesn't mean 
>> "no new venues" but it means fewer.
>
>As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want 
>to return to?  I get your argument in principle, but it seems 
>to me that there has been quite a lot of complaining in the 
>past.  The one factor that seems to me most likely to reduce 
>complaints -- weather -- is evidently beyond the Secretariat's 
>or IAOC's control.
>
>People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver, 
>elevators notwithstanding.  We're going to do that.  (I don't 
>understand why the previous Vencouver venue was less desirable 
>-- to me, these venues were very similar, and not very far 
>apart.  I note, however, that the previous two Vancouver 
>visits were near the end of the year, when it rains all the 
>time in Vancouver.)
>
>People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I 
>presume it's out.
>
>Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel 
>expense in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
>afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue.  I 
>note that the weather was great.  Should we try to return?
>
>I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in 
>2011, which was striking to me because very little seemed 
>different to me compared to our first visit there.  Perhaps 
>this is evidence of the "tuning"
>Beijing?  I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought 
>that was an example of a terrible location, but many people 
>seemed happy with it)?  Hiroshima?  Stockholm?  San Francisco 
>(we thought the crime at Paris was bad, yet didn't complain 
>about being smack up against the Tenderloin)?  Or there's the 
>old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we could do it in March.  
>The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of people.  
>Philadelphia, people complained about expense.  Chicago, too 
>That gets us back through 2007.  Which of the venues do you 
>think we should return to, to which we already haven't 
>returned or planned to return?  And why? 
>
>For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to 
>any of those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of 
>them except Hiroshima, which I missed due to other 
>commitments.  That includes both Maastricht and Dublin, which 
>were both apparently trials for large numbers of others.
>
>Best,
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>[email-masked]
>
>

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 15:08:57 +0200

Oslo?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

BR
Daniele

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:55:59 +0000

Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.) Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right in the city. Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking a break to go to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm deliberately not including tourism here.)

However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend possible would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise that's impossible globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is noise) and the ability to plan ahead to only attend part of the week. This is the current economic reality. Dublin actually scores quite well on those for me.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

BR
Daniele

>were both apparently trials for large numbers of others.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:06:35 +0200

When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the priority (over hotem)....
Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

BR
Daniele

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:07:57 -0700

> Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the last meetings.
The meeting wasn't "in" Dublin. There are no venues  attached to or 
adjacent to suitable hotels large enough to do a plenary in Dublin.

Regarding the venue itself. Next to no attenuation between floors. I am 
still surprised that building had enough steel in it to not come down 
around our ears.

I'd just as soon do wifi for 1200 in a tent.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:10:55 -0700 (PDT)

Daniele,

I can almost guarantee that if you help us find a suitable venue and 
host we'll be coming to Italy. So far we haven't found either, but 
that can be said about a lot of places...

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

> What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. 
> I'm ok with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, 
> but i was wondering why it has never been taken into account in the 
> past meetings. Is it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much 
> cheaper than France, UK or Sweden, aren't they?
> 
> BR
> Daniele
>

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:18:38 +0000

I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location constrained.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

BR
Daniele

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:30:26 -0400

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:55:59PM +0000, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
 
> is noise) and the ability to plan ahead to only attend part of the
> week.

That topic imports a completely new one to this discussion: advance
scheduling of the meetings. If there is any principle for repeating a
venue to be found (I'm a sceptic, but let's see), then advance
scheduling can't enter into it because the lack of advance scheduling
is the same at every meeting. So, for the purposes of this discussion,
you have two options: plan well in advance to be there for the entire
week, or plan to buy plane tickets after the agenda is finalized.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:39:50 +0000

Three options. The two you mention and not going. Yes, advance scheduling is new to this discussion this time, and yes it's not done. But it does have a real impact once time/cost becomes sufficiently critical that days count.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: 06 August 2012 15:30
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

 

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:41:35 -0500

Flights to Vancouver from some cities were extremely expensive.  It would
have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to Beijing, for
example, if I had taken a direct flight from DFW - it would have been by
far my most expensive IETF airfare ever. I didn't because I was trying to
be cost conscious.  However, I could have flown to London in the same time
it took me to get to/from Vancouver and for about the same price.  This is
a typical problem when we go somewhere when tourists go (for some reason,
flying to cities in Canada is very popular when the temp in Texas is 110
degrees F).     Orlando will most likely be just as bad since it is
scheduled during a time where many schools in DFW area have Spring Break -
flight costs right now are over $500 ($560).  I can usually fly anywhere in
the U.S. for around $300 when I book early.  And, of course, I can't book
early as my company won't re-imburse unless I use their travel company and
have approval (which I won't get for at least another 5-6 months).
Hopefully, the IETF negotiated hotel rate won't reflect that it is Spring
Break.

If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best
choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to and the
hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more
attendees).  Personally, the weather is not critical to me, since I spend
the vast majority of my time in the hotel meeting rooms, so I'm very happy
if we meet there in March and November.

Mary

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the
> hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF
> recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that
> I have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes
> Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego).
> And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday
> night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least
> it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was
> staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my
> employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper,
> just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I
> felt less location constrained.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even
> though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!
>
> Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has
> also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.)
> Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right
> in the city. Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking
> a break to go to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and
> so on. (I'm deliberately not including tourism here.)
>
> However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend possible
> would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise that's impossible
> globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is noise) and the ability
> to plan ahead to only attend part of the week. This is the current economic
> reality. Dublin actually scores quite well on those for me.
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok
> with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was
> wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is
> it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or
> Sweden, aren't they?
>
> BR
> Daniele
>

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:53:11 +0000

Those prices still sound like a week's hotel costs would exceed them. And I would expect the cost of your time to your employer to exceed even that. I'm not suggesting airfare prices don't matter, not by any stretch of the imagination, just that they are third if you stay a whole week. Or maybe fourth, there's also the IETF charge to consider, but that's less flexible (week or day) and not highly location dependent. Of course if you go for just a day the airfare is quite likely to be number one on the list, unless the location is relatively local.

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> | http://www.baesystems.com

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 August 2012 15:42
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Please see this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf> on how to deal with suspicious emails.
Flights to Vancouver from some cities were extremely expensive.  It would have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to Beijing, for example, if I had taken a direct flight from DFW - it would have been by far my most expensive IETF airfare ever. I didn't because I was trying to be cost conscious.  However, I could have flown to London in the same time it took me to get to/from Vancouver and for about the same price.  This is a typical problem when we go somewhere when tourists go (for some reason, flying to cities in Canada is very popular when the temp in Texas is 110 degrees F).     Orlando will most likely be just as bad since it is scheduled during a time where many schools in DFW area have Spring Break - flight costs right now are over $500 ($560).  I can usually fly anywhere in the U.S. for around $300 when I book early.  And, of course, I can't book early as my company won't re-imburse unless I use their travel company and have approval (which I won't get for at least another 5-6 months).   Hopefully, the IETF negotiated hotel rate won't reflect that it is Spring Break.

If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to and the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more attendees).  Personally, the weather is not critical to me, since I spend the vast majority of my time in the hotel meeting rooms, so I'm very happy if we meet there in March and November.

Mary

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location constrained.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194<tel:%2B44%201245%20242194> |  Fax: +44 1245 242124<tel:%2B44%201245%20242124>
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> | http://www.baesystems.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194<tel:%2B44%201245%20242194> |  Fax: +44 1245 242124<tel:%2B44%201245%20242124>
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> | http://www.baesystems.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

BR
Daniele

>From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On
>To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:55:08 -0500

The only reason why a RT direct airfare would not have exceeded hotel costs
was because I came early as I attended another meeting in San JOse just
prior to IETF and I was attending a workshop on Saturday. If I had arrived
on Saturday the direct RT airfare would have exceeded hotel costs.

Mary.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Those prices still sound like a week's hotel costs would exceed them.
> And I would expect the cost of your time to your employer to exceed even
> that. I'm not suggesting airfare prices don't matter, not by any stretch of
> the imagination, just that they are third if you stay a whole week. Or
> maybe fourth, there's also the IETF charge to consider, but that's less
> flexible (week or day) and not highly location dependent. Of course if you
> go for just a day the airfare is quite likely to be number one on the list,
> unless the location is relatively local.****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Christopher Dearlove****
>
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124****
>
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* 06 August 2012 15:42
> *To:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> *Cc:* Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew
> Sullivan; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> **** WARNING ****
>
> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an
> external partner or the internet.***
> *
> *
> *Please see this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>on how to deal with suspicious emails.
> *****
>
>  Flights to Vancouver from some cities were extremely expensive.  It
> would have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to Beijing, for
> Break.   ****
> ** **
> If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the
> best choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to and
> the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more
> if we meet there in March and November.   ****
>
> ** **
>
> Mary****
>
> ** **
>
> [email-masked]> wrote:****
>
> felt less location constrained.****
>
>
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> -----Original Message-----****
>
> Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)****
>
> ****
> ** **

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:58:38 +0200

To some people it may be "third if <they> stay a whole week"....but for others not!
Going to Vancouver is definitely one the most expensive flights....and takes a lot of time to get there....
Now that I have seen one saying it took him 27 hours to get back....I feel lucky....it took me "only" 24 hours....I left Wednesday late evening and got home Friday morning....
And no, even if I stayed two more nights....the cost of the flight was still much higher than the price of the hotel...
-          Nurit
From: ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 5:53 PM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  | http://www.baesystems.com

*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Please see this process <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>  on how to deal with suspicious emails.
Flights to Vancouver from some cities were extremely expensive.  It would have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to Beijing, for example, if I had taken a direct flight from DFW - it would have been by far my most expensive IETF airfare ever. I didn't because I was trying to be cost conscious.  However, I could have flown to London in the same time it took me to get to/from Vancouver and for about the same price.  This is a typical problem when we go somewhere when tourists go (for some reason, flying to cities in Canada is very popular when the temp in Texas is 110 degrees F).     Orlando will most likely be just as bad since it is scheduled during a time where many schools in DFW area have Spring Break - flight costs right now are over $500 ($560).  I can usually fly anywhere in the U.S. for around $300 when I book early.  And, of course, I can't book early as my company won't re-imburse unless I use their travel company and have approval (which I won't get for at least another 5-6 months).   Hopefully, the IETF negotiated hotel rate won't reflect that it is Spring Break.   

Mary
 
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <[email-masked]> wrote:
I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location constrained.

Tel: +44 1245 242194 <tel:%2B44%201245%20242194>  |  Fax: +44 1245 242124 <tel:%2B44%201245%20242124> 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

Tel: +44 1245 242194 <tel:%2B44%201245%20242194>  |  Fax: +44 1245 242124 <tel:%2B44%201245%20242124> 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

BR
Daniele

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 15:02:13 +0000

My experience is no doubt biased by that one can get directly to most places, including Vancouver the last time I went (not this year), from London, and I can get to Heathrow in well under two hours.

From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 August 2012 15:59
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Mary Barnes
Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

*** WARNING ***

-          Nurit

Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

*** WARNING ***

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

BR
Daniele

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:33:07 -0800

This appears to be turning into a survey.  My views are no doubt colored
by it being difficult, expensive, and slow to get anywhere (I live near
Fairbanks, AK) so travel doesn't figure very prominently into how I
feel about various venues.  But even if it did ...  I go to IETF
meetings to get work done, and it's been easier some places than others.
Minneapolis has consistently had outstanding meeting facilities, and
I thought the facilities in Vancouver last week were excellent, too
(and the network team did an outstanding job - many thanks!).
Inexpensive, edible food is a huge plus, and there again, Minneapolis
and Vancouver have stood out.  But still, the only really serious
consideration for me is whether or not the facilities make it easier
to get done the things that need to get done.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:44:32 -0400

> to get done the things that need to get done.

Using those criteria, I would rate Prague and Beijing as good as or
better than Minneapolis, and cheaper if you avoid the big hotels.

---

From: Michal Krsek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:51:31 +0200

From central Europe perspective - price for airline ticket to Vancouver in summer is rocket expensive. I can fly to united states for half price.

So "cheap food" cant beat more than $1.000 extra fee paid to airline.

It does not mean YVR is a bad place, but I'd recommend to be carefull when talking about expensiveness.

MK

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:18:35 -0400

> better than Minneapolis, and cheaper if you avoid the big hotels.

Thanks to Scott and Melinda for demonstrating the problem I saw in the
original position.  Dave's original argument was that by going back to
places instead of finding new ones, we win by being able to tune.  But
I am unable to see from the evidence the kind of agreement on a site
that results in mere tuning.  For _every_ meeting, I can think of some
set of people who will have reservations about the venue for some
reason.  That is not the basis for simple tuning.  Some people (many
of whom are the squeakiest wheels) appear to have internally
inconsistent sets of demands.

I think the people selecting venues -- return or otherwise -- have a
thankless job, and I think that we should stop trying to manage that
job on a list of a thousand people.  "This worked, that didn't" is,
we've heard, useful feedback.  Aside from that, I don't see what more
we have to say.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:38:05 +0200

I made always good experiences with meeting venues in the downtown of hub cities with good flight connections.
As a European for me the east coast of North America is better than the west coast.

So far my experience was very good with following meeting locations and would agree for a repetition: 
Vancouver, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Paris, London, Stockholm and even Minneapolis (brrr).

Bad experiences were: Dublin (60 min. as a sum to drive for a dinner), Maastricht (60 min. as a sum to walk for a dinner), Anaheim (far away from the LA airport)

Why don't we actually plan a meeting in Boston, New York, Madrid, or Lisbon?

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 5:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:32:59 -0400

[RS> ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was a
boondoggle.  The Hilton in Minneapolis  of all the IETF meetings I’ve
attended has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc. 

If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best
choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to and the
hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more attendees).
Personally, the weather is not critical to me, since I spend the vast
majority of my time in the hotel meeting rooms, so I'm very happy if we meet
there in March and November.   

Mary

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
<[email-masked]> wrote:

I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the
hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF
recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I
have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes
Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego).
And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday
night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least
it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was
staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my
employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper,
just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt
less location constrained.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 <tel:%2B44%201245%20242194>  |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
<tel:%2B44%201245%20242124> 
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----

From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 August 2012 15:07
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the priority
(over hotem)....
Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even
though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext
Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has
also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.)
Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right in
the city. Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking a
break to go to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and so
on. (I'm deliberately not including tourism here.)

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 <tel:%2B44%201245%20242194>  |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
<tel:%2B44%201245%20242124> 
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the
last meetings.

BR
Daniele

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:14:35 -0400

> hotel cost for a week. 

note: I pay my own way, and make all my own arrangements.

The only meetings where my hotel costs exceeded my transporation costs
were the Montreal IETFs (I live in Ottawa).  When I've flown I have
seldom ever been on direct flights.

I *do* avoid the main hotel if the price is poor.  I did get the
Sheraton Wall (backup hotel IETF84), via hotwire.com, which surprised me.

I find staying over saturday night no longer has any affect on my travel
costs. 

I do prefer returning to the same places, and I do like Minneapolis.
(Yes, even in March and November)

I am more concerned that we have three north-american IETFs in a row
(Vancouver, Atlanta, Orlando), and 4 of the next 6 are in North America.
(Not counting Hawaii as North America for the purposes of travel
budgets, or it's be 5/7)

I'm also concerned about going popular places (Quebec, Orlando) during
peak tourist season.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 20:19:34 -0400

+1

On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> [RS> ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was a boondoggle.  The Hilton in Minneapolis  of all the IETF meetings I’ve attended has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc.
>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 02:22:04 +0200

On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:41, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best choice IMHO.  

+1 a lot.
(If we indeed have to choose the US.)
Great facility to get work done, good food, reasonable flights.

And add Prague as the staple for Europe.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:38:12 -0300

I do. May be you do not leave far enough from IETF venues.

Regards
as

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:42:33 -0300

Live, not "leave".

	I have some jetlag from my almost 30 hours from Vancouver to Montevideo.

=D
as

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Aug 2012 01:09:45 -0000

>far my most expensive IETF airfare ever.

That's very odd.  I see lots of fares from DFW to YVR from Saturday to
Saturday via Houston or Denver for in upcoming weeks for under $550,
and nonstops for $678.  (If you can get to Beijing for that price, I'd
sure like to hear about it.)

Did you perhaps wait until the last minute to buy your tickets, or have
company rules that require flying on airlines without competitive prices
to Canada?

Flying to Canada is certainly more expensive than flying within the
US, but it's not that much more expensive.  I thought the hotel and
food were all quite reasonable, but it does help that I get the HST
back.

R's,
John

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:33:54 -0500

The thing is that I don't need a flight to DFW to YVR for this coming week
and I don't see the prices you do either.  I did not buy my tickets at the
last minute and believe it or not, I'm actually not lying about what I paid
for my tickets to YVR nor to Beijing.   I made a very simple statement of
fact based on my own experiences.  I can't fathom why you felt obligated to
spend time trying to show that I was lying.

Mary.

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Aug 2012 00:41:37 -0400

> spend time trying to show that I was lying.

Sigh.  If you'll review my previous messages, you'll note that I never 
said you were lying.  Is there some reason that it's important to put 
words in people's mouths?

But since non-stop tickets from Dallas to Vancouver are easily available
for prices far below any plausible price for a ticket to China via aa.com
and the usual travel agents, something peculiar was evidently going on
when you bought yours.

R's,
John

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:00:36 -0500

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:41 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> said you were lying.  Is there some reason that it's important to put words
> in people's mouths?
>
> [MB] I paid around $962.10 for my ticket to Beijing when we had the IETF
there in Nov 2010.   So, no, there was nothing peculiar except that a
direct flight from DFW to YVR was over $2000 when I was making
reservations.  My indirect flight was $1156.23.   Certainly, if you look
for flights to YVR in a couple weeks, the prices less.  That's because kids
are back in school.  [/MB]

[MB] No - you did not use the noun "liar" or the verb "lying", but when you
tell someone that what they are saying can't possibly be true, that has the
same implication. [/MB]

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:13:48 -0400

+1 to both of Carsten's suggestions.

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:42:10 -0400

> From: John Levine [[email-masked]]
> 
> >It would have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to
> >Beijing, for example, if I had taken a direct flight from DFW
> 
> and nonstops for $678.

I expect that a chunk of the variance hinges on the qualifier
"direct", which Mary included and Jon did not.  Mary uses a major hub
(DFW) and can plausibly take direct flights to many locations.  I
don't, and I never even consider searching for direct flights.  But
the market for direct flights is likely to be much thinner than the
market for connecting flights, and to be more subject to spot
shortages and the vagaries of how airles have laid out their route
systems.

More disturbing is Mary's later "My indirect flight was $1156.23."
It'd be useful to get information from someone who really knows
airfares as to why that might happen.  But I can see from ITA Software
that even indirect flights DFW-YVR in the near future can easily reach
$650, and higher within the next two weeks.  Tickets BOS-YVR (my
route) have about the same prices.

Dale

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:11:04 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> I expect that a chunk of the variance hinges on the qualifier

While the vagaries of air transport costs fascinate me, I'm not sure
how the question of the cost of one route at one time for one person
is broadly relevant.  The basic fact of having meetings in multiple
places (which is a direct consequence of trying to spread the pain of
travel) is that sometimes each of us will have an expensive flight.
(This is the same reason that I think confusing the
scheduling-in-advance question with the venue question is a bad idea.)

Dave Crocker's original point was that some venues are "good enough"
that you can tune them to be better.  I was sceptical, but upthread we
had two proposals: Minneapolis and Prague.  Nobody seems to have
argued against.

Any others?  At the plenary in Vancouver we heard "go here again", and
we've already decided to run that trial in any case.  That makes
three.  Also, many people expressed satisfaction in Québec.

Vancouver's Pacific location notwithstanding, this appears to me to
suggest that we have one "repeat" location in Europe and two in North
America.  This leaves us rather thin in Asia-Pacific.  I recall people
saying good things about Taipei.  

The point of all this, in case it isn't clear, is to ask to add a
question to the post-meeting survey about specific venues and whether
future meetings should try to return to them.  Given Arrow paradoxes
and so on, I think a short list with "yes/no" for each is much more
likely to yield useful aggregate results than a big list or a rank
order.  So, I'd like to suggest the following survey item be added to
the post-Vancouver survey:

    Do you support the IETF returning to the very same venue (hotel
    and meeting facilities) as the last time in the following
    meetings:

    - IETF 84, Vancouver (Hyatt) [Y|N]
    - IETF 82, Taipei (Hyatt and TICC) [Y|N]
    - IETF 81, Québec (Hilton) [Y|N]
    - IETF 80, Prague (Hilton) [Y|N]
    - IETF 73, Minneapolis (Hilton) [Y|N]

I suppose we could just add every venue from the last _n_ years, but
I'm reluctant to do that because I think it will give too many
options. 

I seem to recall at least some of the previous post-meeting surveys
asking this question about the venue we were just in.  I think it
would be interesting, however, to pick a few popular venues and track
their ratings over time.

This is merely a suggestion for the IAOC, and I hope they feel free to
treat it as a bad idea.  (It's also the last I have to say on this
topic, since I've used up my bit quota.)

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:28:33 +0200

Why the survey should limit it to the last five meetings...
In the long history we experienced additional good places....
So maybe the survey should be more open and let each list his 3-5 favorable places based on the experience from earlier meetings?
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

Dear colleagues,

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: ext Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:01:43 -0400

Ok, I know I said that I'd shut up, but this is a clarifying question,
so I'll answer.

> Why the survey should limit it to the last five meetings...

That's what the oblique reference to Arrow-and-other-issues was about.
It turns out that if you give groups of people choices, the
preferences in a set are not necessarily transitive in the aggregate
even if they are in the individual cases.  (This is why preferential
ballot systems and so on have paradoxical effects.)  Similarly, if you
give people too many options, you overwhelm their ability to answer
and you get answers that are not consistent with the answers under
more narrowly constrained choices.

Survey methodology is one of my hobby horses.  The approach I
suggested is far from perfect, but given the lousy sample (our sample
is always self-selected) it seemed likely to me to produce better data
than other approaches.  I can justify this at greater length off list
if you really want.

> In the long history we experienced additional good places....

I picked recent ones where I heard people say good things and I didn't
hear very many complaints; also, I included only things people have
quite recently praised (that's why Minneapolis is on there even though
the last visit was some years ago).  I should note that I haven't
really found anything too bad about _any_ meeting I've been to, so I
don't have a horse in this race.  Anaheim was my least favourite, but
I still had a useful meeting, which is my real measure.  (Once again,
I note, people complained rather little and the weather was good.  I'm
pretty convinced about the weather-to-complaints correlation.  Maybe
we need a COLDNWET WG.)

> So maybe the survey should be more open and let each list his 3-5 favorable places based on the experience from earlier meetings?

No, that will produce totally useless data.  There will be no way to
reconcile it.  And anyway, because of the transitivity problem, we
could end up picking everyone's last choice out of that list to go to.

Now I really will shut up,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:36:14 -0400

I'd strongly prefer the IETF to focus on going to places where we get
work done and where costs can be controlled.
I'd prefer to avoid tourist destinations to some extent even if they are
not more expensive, but definitely if they are.
I want to present a professional image to my clients and I want to go to
IETf meetings with people who are there to get work done, not to tour.

So, for US meetings I agree with the following:

>    boondoggle.  The Hilton in Minneapolis  of all the IETF meetings I ve

---

From: "Anshuman Pratap Chaudhary" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:52:14 +0000

Why not in bermuda triangle- innovation coupled with adventure!!! 

Warm Regards, 

Anshuman 

Sent from my BlackBerry® Smartphone, regret typo's!

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

Dear colleagues,

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:00:25 +0000

BTW, if anyone finds the venue question extremely compelling / interesting
-- consider seeking a spot on the IAOC during the next nominating period.

- Jason

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:18:01 -0700

> -- consider seeking a spot on the IAOC during the next nominating period.

Yes, please do.  Frankly, I'd prefer there be competition; it creates 
healthy debate within nomcom and might even improve community awareness 
of IAOC functions.

The one caveat that I'll offer is that the IAOC has a range of topics 
beyond meeting venue -- budget, tools development, IT ops, legal, IPR, etc.:

    http://iaoc.ietf.org/

They all need to be covered by all the IAOC members.

d/

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:55:20 +0100

Hi,

My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver.  Great meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.

My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and Maastricht.

Of course, you have to experiment to find good repeat venues...

Tim

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:01:28 -0400

I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been downtown.  Same for Vienna.

Steve

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:17:18 +0100

> I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been downtown.  Same for Vienna.

Quite possibly, but a rating is based on a venue, not a city.  Dublin is a great city.  An out of town golf resort is not a great venue.

Tim

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Tim Chown wrote:

> Quite possibly, but a rating is based on a venue, not a city.  
> Dublin is a great city.  An out of town golf resort is not a great 
> venue.
> 
> Tim

Right, and I don't think we will be going back to CityWest ever:

http://www.herald.ie/news/creditors-fury-at-citywest-showdown-2489018.html

Ole

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:34:02 -0400

+1  Prague was excellent .. I actually liked Quebec City but connections
were awful.  

So where in Asia?  You have to have the 3.  

Is this discussion is really about are we the Internet Entertainment and
Travel Facility??   Some of us have employers some of us do not.  Is this
about "diversity" or getting the work done. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Steve Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:01 PM
To: Tim Chown
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been downtown.
Same for Vienna.

Steve
 
On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Tim Chown wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver.
Great meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:34:27 +0100

> Right, and I don't think we will be going back to CityWest ever:

So I agree with that. If a feasible venue actually in Dublin
turns up I'll be sure to let Ray/IAOC/site-visit folks know.

> http://www.herald.ie/news/creditors-fury-at-citywest-showdown-2489018.html

However the place is still open. Wonders of business I guess;-)

S.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Aug 2012 00:29:34 -0000

>turns up I'll be sure to let Ray/IAOC/site-visit folks know.

The Burlington hotel claims that they can host a 1500 person meeting.

MAAWG met there in 2007 and it worked well for us, although that was
a somewhat smaller meeting.

R's,
John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:20:24 -0700

> The Burlington hotel claims that they can host a 1500 person meeting.

Yeah, it's exactly that easy to choose a venue.  A single number does it.[1]

not.

Folks, the IETF actually has a rather constraining set of requirements 
and the secretariat has to put in quite a bit of effort to qualify 
venues.  Many places that are otherwise just dandy can't deal with these 
complexities.  For example, we run quite a few parallel meetings that 
are large.

Take a careful look at the range of serious complaints that get lodged 
about venues and you can start to glean the requirements list.  (I said 
serious.  That is, complaints that get significant traction from the 
community.)

Perhaps the Burlington really can accommodate us, but given the rate at 
which places get rejected, the expectation ain't great.  That doesn't 
mean reject it out of hand, of course.

d/

[1] For the places that we do go to and that we like, I've no idea what 
single capacity number they typically cite, but I predict it's more like 
double our actual size, if not triple.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:24:30 -0700

> +1  Prague was excellent .. I actually liked Quebec City but connections

I haven't seen anyone post negative comments about Prague in this 
thread.  By way of probing, I'll ask for them.  For example, do folks 
who live outside of that region not care about the additional hop of 
travel to get to it?

> So where in Asia?  You have to have the 3.

Asia is east of Prague.

sigh.  sorry.

As Bob has noted from the IAOC presentation, Asia is actually proving a 
challenge.  Due to language and culture challenges, we seem to really 
need a host.  And there there are price problems we keep hitting.

> about "diversity" or getting the work done.

While it's not automatic that these are mutually exclusive, I sometimes 
find it confusing to discern the criteria that participants apply.

d/

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:42:09 -0800

> who live outside of that region not care about the additional hop of

It was over 24 hours of travel to get to Prague and over 24
hours of travel to get to Taipei - it's a wash.

It's looking like given the constraints we can't meet in Alaska.
Kidding - there aren't any facilities large enough, even in
Anchorage.

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:55:23 -0700 (PDT)

You said about Prague:

"...[do] folks who live outside of that region not care about the 
additional hop of travel to get to it?"

This gets cited often, and I don't really understand why. There are 
VERY few European cities that are reachable directly from the US (or 
Asia for that matter). Most require transiting some kind of major hub 
(London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam to name a few). There will always 
be exceptions, I am sure you can get to Stockholm directly from the US 
East Coast, but not from the West Coast. I am sure a very large 
percentage of the IETF attendees from the US went through London or 
Frankfurt (or a small number of alternatives) to get to Stockholm on 
the two occasions when we met there.

Since I travel to Norway on a more or less regular basis, I am used to 
(and quite happy to) go through Frankfurt or London, it's just a fact 
of life especially if you factor in the "preferred carrier" (personal 
or corporate). Prague may be an "extra hop," but depending on 
schedules you might well get to your destination (hotel) just as 
quickly as you would for getting from CDG to central Paris or LHR to 
central London.

If we restrict European cities to the ones with direct flight 
connections from other continents, we're really limiting the choices. 
Let's be a little more realistic and consider actual travel "pain" 
from the top hubs in Europe, assuming we can't (always) meet in those 
places.

I do understand that the extra hop does add some cost, which is why
I always consider trains as a reasonable alternative, albeit not a
particularly fast one. For example, the cost for a First Class train
ticket from Frankfurt to Prague was 98 Euros. I am not suggesting
that this is always going to be a reasonable alternative, and I am
worried that the mere mention of "train" on this list may result in
a flame war, but still...

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:01:12 -0700

On 8/7/2012 7:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> (London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam to name a few).

So, those hubs are reachable directly from the US and Asia, aren't they?

> connections from other continents, we're really limiting the choices.

Yup.

> I do understand that the extra hop does add some cost,

Something like an extra US$200 or so, if I remember my research of a 
couple of years ago.  And a round-trip extra cost in time of 1/2-1 day...

d/

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:12:19 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:

> > Most require transiting some kind of major hub (London, Paris, 
> > Frankfurt, Amsterdam to name a few).
> 

Yes, they are, and we have met in Paris twice and London once, will 
meet there again in 2014. Amsterdam, well, we've met there once too,
but that was a long time ago and the group was MUCH smaller. London
and Paris also happen to be among the most expensive places in the
world, and also very "popular" in terms of locating a suitable and
available venue.

> Something like an extra US$200 or so, if I remember my research of a couple of
> years ago.  And a round-trip extra cost in time of 1/2-1 day...

See my previous message. Short answer: it depends. Frankfurt to Prague 
is a really short flight.

Tradeoffs include significantly lower venue and hotel costs, more
availability of said venue etc. I think you'd generally get your
$200 back, but this is certainly not something one can ever be
particularly scientific about given all the variables. And with
specific reference to Prague, well, it certainly fits the "we know
this venue, we like this venue" mantra, hence it gets the "should
repeat" checkmark.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:01 +0530

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:24 AM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> Again, choosing three or so locations ignores large parts of not only the
>> developing world (e.g., Africa, India), but also substantial portions of the
>> developed world with a reasonable track record of participation (e.g.,
>> Australia, New Zealand, Brazil).

@Mark : There has been a steady stream of participation from India for
atleast the last 4 years. By India, I mean Indians living in India and
not those living abroad (there have been quite a few of them around in
IETF for longer than 4+ years).

> Zealand at the last IETF meeting.  There was interest to have the IETF in
> New Zealand.  I guess that it was considered as difficult to convince the
> cookie-eating mob that it was a good location.

@SM : Where do you get this data. It will be interesting to chart the
data for IETF participants over the years by country / affliation. If
we have the base location of participants then it will be interesting
to see the average distance over the years and participation based on
city.

>>  reasons for the IETF returning to Australia, or appearing nearby. And
>> going to Brazil or thereabouts, and India, and (eventually) Africa. Doesn't
>> have to be every year, but once a decade+ is not often enough.

+1

> The IETF will likely go to Latin America first.  My guess is that it might
> eventually go to India.  If it ever goes to Africa it will be more of a
> political statement than anything else.
>
> Regards,
> -sm

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Aug 2012 03:58:48 -0000

>Yeah, it's exactly that easy to choose a venue.  A single number does it.[1]

Of course.  MAAWG has been there so we know it's not a dump, it's
downtown, they can deal with nerds with lots of computers who demand
coffee and cookies, the prices are not totally absurd, etc.  MAAWG is
smaller than the IETF so there may well be problems that make it
unsuitable, but if people are looking for a downtown Dublin hotel,
that's the most likely one.

R's,
John

PS: Weren't you at that meeting?  The day we arrived there was a
benefit women's road race in the morning so when we got there in the
afternoon, the pubs were all full of the racers, who ranged from
athletic teens to good natured grannies, and their friends.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Aug 2012 04:04:47 -0000

>connections from other continents, we're really limiting the choices. 

For some of us, if we limit our choices to places with direct flights,
that means Newark, Philadelphia, or Detroit.  Count your blessings.

We can argue about whether Quebec was unduly hard to get to (I didn't
have any problem when I got tickets a month ahead, even though I was
redeeming points), but it seems to me that so long as most people can
get to or from the venue in less than a day for a reasonable amount of
money, it's OK.

R's,
John

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:47:34 -0700

Hi Vinayak,
>data for IETF participants over the years by country / affliation. If

The list of participants for the last meeting is at 
https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf84/attendance.py

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:03:41 +0200

> I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been
downtown.  

Indeed.

Mehmet 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of ext Steve
> Crocker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:01 AM
> To: Tim Chown
> Cc: [email-masked]
> I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been
downtown.  Same for
> Vienna.
> > My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and
Vancouver.  Great
> meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
> >

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:34:33 -0600

I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even permanently.

Geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:39:10 -0600

The Orlando airport is a nightmare almost any time and will be even worse during this upcoming IETF.  When I had my FlyClear card it was the only airport where I ever felt that it was necessary.

Avoiding Orlando during the many weeks a spring break would have been good.

Geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:41:24 -0600

I liked the hotel and prague was wonderful, but it didn't seem easy to get to cheaply from the US.

Geoff

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:08:10 -0400

> I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even permanently.

Does nobody care about going to new places so that new people are 
exposed to the IETF and may start getting involved?

We've seen this positive effect many times when we went outside our 
comfort zone...

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:06:56 +0300

Mileage varies. 

For me it was the shortest and cheapest flight of any IETF meeting I have attended.

Yoav

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:13:23 +0200

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Yoav Nir
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:07 PM
To: Geoff Mulligan
Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

Mileage varies. 

Yoav

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:18:52 -0600

> For me it was the shortest and cheapest flight of any IETF meeting I have attended.

If we discussed protocols the way we discuss venue sites, all would be
lost. "Oh, this feature works great for me, therefore let's include it
in the spec."

Perhaps we might consider ending these interminable venue discussions
and just complain three times a year when we visit a place that the IAOC
has selected?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:30:23 -0700

> and just complain three times a year when we visit a place that the IAOC

now i'm completely confused.

i thought that that was/is exactly what's being done...

d/

ps. btw, what is it that you think is different about this from the way 
we /do/ discuss protocol specs?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:49:22 -0700

On 8/8/2012 11:46 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> So then why not consider, London, Paris (not the Concorde Lafayette), Frankfurt, Amsterdam?

shockingly, amsterdam can't handle the ietf.  wrong mix of resources. 
really.

paris appears to have broad crime and work-ethic patterns that also are 
problematic, not just at the concorde.

to be clear: i'm speaking for myself.

d/

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:06:50 -0700 (PDT)

Geoff,

What are you talking about? Of course we are "considering" all of 
those places. We are going to London in 2014 for example, we went to 
Paris this year. But, like with all popular places, finding venues 
available for OUR dates is not easy. Add to that the costs and you 
will understand why we don't meet in London or Paris or Frankfurt or 
Amsterdam more often.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:38:44 -0700

Hi Peter,
>lost. "Oh, this feature works great for me, therefore let's include it

That's how protocols are discussed. :-)

>and just complain three times a year when we visit a place that the IAOC

Here's a quick snapshot.

  Quebec has been in the exact same location for over 400 years.  The city
  has historic monuments which are insulting to the Americans who failed
  to capture the city in 1775. [1]

  Brand-new conference centre, canonical hotel is a Hilton, and
  boy can I show you some bars... [2]

  Nothing is "a reasonable walk" when the average temperature is 32 C.
  At least not for the "average" IETF attendee. [3]

  You'd be eligible to vote if you'd attended an IETF anytime within the past,
  say, 2 years - or if you were willing to commit to attending the one you vote
  on if it wins. [4]

  There are a host of reasons that voting is a stupid decision making 
process. I
  thought we knew that. [5]

  Now, we should maybe calibrate that in something other than USD (maybe in
  milligrams of gold, or the Economist's Bic Mac index) and also find an
  independent source on hotel price inflation. [6]

  According to the stats, since IETF-1, there have been 6 IETF meetings in
  Minneapolis.  Every one of them had significantly lower number of 
participants
  than the meeting before  and after them... except IETF-44 which was 
lower than
  IETF-43 but about the same as IETF-45, but IETF-45 was in Oslo, Norway, and
  IETF-46 went back up to higher levels again. [7]

  Maastricht Bans Cannabis Coffee-Shop Tourists [8]

  The social was held at an abbey that had wonderful dark beer in 1 
litre steins.
  I discovered that it's best to drink only one, if flying home at 
30,000 feet the
  next day. [9]

  Obviously, not enough Canadians from outside Toronto were asked.
  Everyone in the country loves to hate Toronto. [10]

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg66962.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68326.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68330.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68655.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68681.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68682.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68729.html
8. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69714.html
9. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70647.html
10. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70653.html

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Aug 2012 20:52:20 -0000

>we /do/ discuss protocol specs?

People discussing venues are less willing to believe that anyone
else's experience or issues differ from their own.

R's,
John

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:59:24 +0700

On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:34 -0600, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> > [RS> ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was
> > a boondoggle.  

I imagine that few employers would ever argue that a trip to Hell would
be a boondoggle, either,
but that doesn't make it a good idea...

> > The Hilton in Minneapolis  of all the IETF meetings I’ve attended
> > has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is
> > the best choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to
> > get to and the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we
> > had many more attendees).  Personally, the weather is not critical
> > to me, since I spend the vast majority of my time in the hotel
> > meeting rooms, so I'm very happy if we meet there in March and
> > November.   
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Mary
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded
> > the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly
> > gone for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly
> > cheap hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe
> > (but that statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away
> > western US cities down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy,
> > and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in your trip, even
> > at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from here).
> > An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly
> > cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer,
> > and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just
> > better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I
> > Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive
> > trip....even though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!
> > 
> > Of ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> > Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This
> > has also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no
> > personal car.) Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places)
> > where you were right in the city. Being in a city is better for
> > lunch and dinner options, taking a break to go to a bookshop (or to
> > buy something you forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm deliberately not
> > including tourism here.)
> > 
> > However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend
> > possible would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise
> > that's impossible globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest
> > week. This is the current economic reality. Dublin actually scores
> > quite well on those for me.
> > 
> > --
> > Christopher Dearlove
> > Of Daniele Ceccarelli

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:08:27 +0700

On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 20:13 +0200, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod

Indeed, almost any place in Europe is easier & cheaper for me (not to
mention less hassle from immigration and customs!) than any place in the
US.

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:13:42 +0700

> and just complain three times a year when we visit a place that the IAOC

I though we already did that ;-).

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:45:05 -0400

> We've seen this positive effect many times when we went outside our 

Is Miami out of the question?

-- 
HLS

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:50:04 -0700 (PDT)

No more so than Orlando where we are going after Atlanta, in my 
opinion. There exists a whole set of requirements ranging from
travel considerations, costs, suitable venue, hotels, and nearby 
environment to host and sponsorship availability. I see no reason
why Miami would be automatically excluded from consideration.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Hector Santos wrote:

> > Does nobody care about going to new places so that new people are exposed to
> > the IETF and may start getting involved?
> > 
> > We've seen this positive effect many times when we went outside our comfort
> > zone...
>

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:11:52 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Mulligan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 5:34 PM

I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even
permanently.

<tp>
So, would I despite London 2014 being only a train ride away.
Minneapolis has the flights, and flights across the Atlantic are so much
cheaper than those across Europe,  has the range of hotels (and has the
possibility of extra-mural interests, although it is travel and hotel
costs that dominate my decision-making)

Tom Petch
</tp>

Geoff

> If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the
best choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to
and the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more
attendees).  Personally, the weather is not critical to me, since I
spend the vast majority of my time in the hotel meeting rooms, so I'm
very happy if we meet there in March and November.
> I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded
the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone
for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap
hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe (but that
statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away western US cities
down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper
including a Saturday night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra
night in a hotel (at least it is from here). An almost exception was
Paris this year where I was staying fairly cheaply, but that was a
cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I didn't fly (I went by
train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris has cheap(er)
hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location constrained.
[email-masked]
> Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This
has also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal
car.) Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you
were right in the city. Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner
options, taking a break to go to a bookshop (or to buy something you
forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm deliberately not including tourism
here.)
possible would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise
that's impossible globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is
noise) and the ability to plan ahead to only attend part of the week.
This is the current economic reality. Dublin actually scores quite well
on those for me.
Of Daniele Ceccarelli
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
I'm ok with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but
i was wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past
meetings. Is it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than
France, UK or Sweden, aren't they?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:07:09 -0700

offlist.

Geoff,

Frankfurt is a city in Germany.  I believe the IETF has never been there.

Other than those two tidbits about it, I've no idea what is to be 
accomplished by someone's randomly throwing out the names of cities for 
a discussion like this, especially when threads like these always have a 
great deal of trouble staying focused on the /principle/ rather than 
haggling the details.

d/

On 8/8/2012 12:24 PM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> Frankfurt?
>
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> shockingly, amsterdam can't handle the ietf.  wrong mix of resources. really.
>>
>> paris appears to have broad crime and work-ethic patterns that also are problematic, not just at the concorde.
>>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:11:04 -0700

> else's experience or issues differ from their own.

A common problem in /any/ IETF discussion, technical or otherwise, is 
the tendency of speakers to live within two views:

1.  If it is good enough for me, it must be good enough for everyone

2.  If it is unacceptable to me, it must be unacceptable for everyone.

We are not a very empathetic crowd.

I can't say that I see the 'less' that you assert.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:12:43 -0700

> offlist.

weird.  i really did prune the list.  sorry.

but then, it's not as if my concern applies only to Geoff's note...

d/

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:17:34 +0300

> offlist.

Not so much

> Frankfurt is a city in Germany.  I believe the IETF has never been there.

Two more tidbits:
 - It's a huge aviation hub. There are direct flights from everywhere, similar to CDG, Heathrow, or Schiphol
 - Unlike Paris, London and Amsterdam, it's not a great tourist attraction, so conceivably it would be cheaper.

> great deal of trouble staying focused on the /principle/ rather than 

The principle would be to go to aviation hubs so as to minimize the collective pain. Most people from the US going to Prague, would have a connection in Frankfurt, so a meeting in Frankfurt would reduce the amount of flights.

Yoav

> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:20:07 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Geoff Mulligan wrote:

> So I'm confused...  We're we talking about the possibility of 
> sticking to one European city, one north American city and one Asian 
> city and not picking various cities throughout the world.

Oh, I see. My reading was that we would focus on small number of 
cities in each region, especially since we cannot depend on ONE
being always available for our dates, host and sponsorship 
notwithstanding.

Ole

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:22:58 -0700 (PDT)

Frankfurt has been considered. Turns out that it is one of the most
expensive cities in all of Europe to have a conference. It is also
geared mostly towards large tradeshows. The Frankfurt Messe is about
the size of your average Olympic Park, just walking from the nearest 
hotel to your venue Hall could take 15 minutes.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:11:25 -0300

Besides where to to repeat, some new places to go that are cheaper and closer to me (and possible to others, and perhaps not so bad to many).

	Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Miami, Madrid, Cancun, Santiago, Panama, San Juan

Regards,
as

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:56:37 +0530

Hi,

For new how is Dubai or Barcelona?

Repeat: I would like Prague, Vancouver, Quebec!

Regards,
D

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>         Besides where to to repeat, some new places to go that are cheaper
> and closer to me (and possible to others, and perhaps not so bad to many).
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:40:50 -0400

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Perreault <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even

    Simon> Does nobody care about going to new places so that new people
    Simon> are exposed to the IETF and may start getting involved?

    Simon> We've seen this positive effect many times when we went
    Simon> outside our comfort zone...

Simon, it *is* important.
But, we don't have to go to a new place every meeting.

If 1/3 meetings are in North America, I see no reason why we can't
return to places that work.  I think the same mostly applies to Europe
as well.  (We don't have to go back to the *same* place every year,
although there are advantages of that.  So a Paris/Prague would be fine,
but please, not Paris in the summer... nor Orlando on spring break)

Let's innovate for that third meeting, realizing that we do not yet
have a preferred place in Asia, or any place in Africa or South America,
but maybe we should. 

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:24:18 -0600

Frankfurt?

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:33:38 -0600

So I'm confused...  We're we talking about the possibility of sticking to one European city, one north American city and one Asian city and not picking various cities throughout the world.

I was just suggesting picking -a- city in Europe that was not multiple hops from most US hubs.  Prague, while a nice city, isn't one hop and as Dave pointed out this adds costs and time, just as would choosing a US city that is multiple hops from major European hubs.

I loved Vancouver and would go back there over and over again.  I like Minneapolis for convenience and venue and would go there every time.

I liked Prague, both times, but had trouble getting there both times and it did add time and cost.

Geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:46:55 -0600

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:55:49 -0300

+1

Regards,
as

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:58:24 -0400

> have a preferred place in Asia, or any place in Africa or South America,

I think this is a fine idea.

And while some see value in going to new places so as to expose new people to the IETF, there is one benefit to revisiting venues that has not been given. By revisiting well trodden venues, attendees have the opportunity to learn what works for them as far as hotel, travel, etc… and can learn to optimize based on their needs and hopefully that will enable them to reduce costs in both money, time, and mental energy.

-andy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:55:02 -0700

On 8/9/2012 11:37 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
>>> Frankfurt is a city in Germany.  I believe the IETF has never been
...
> I've found it relatively inexpensive, clean and very easy to get to.

Ole's comment was reflecting secretariat and IAOC research.

Individual experience can be very misleading here.  Sometimes, yes, it 
can point to approaches that haven't been considered.  But the 
'sometimes' is meant as a polite way of saying 'almost never'.

As someone who has challenged the IETF's venue selection process 
vigorously for 20 years, I am forced to admit that any possible problems 
in the process seem to be strategic, not tactical.  I haven't seen any 
evidence that the current process obtains distorted data or makes silly 
decisions in the /details/ of researching or arranging a given city.

Anyone thinking otherwise needs to employ the full set of requirements 
for an IETF meeting, not merely a stray, isolated item, such as 
discounted hotel price.

>> The principle would be to go to aviation hubs so as to minimize the
>> collective pain. Most people from the US going to Prague, would have a
>> connection in Frankfurt, so a meeting in Frankfurt would reduce the
>> amount of flights.
> This is why I threw out a "not so random" city name - Frankfurt.

Indeed, random was the wrong word.  That word is often used incorrectly. 
  The correct word is "arbitrary".

It is frankly entirely arbitrary to suggest a particular city, in terms 
of the a directed discussion about the /approach/ of choosing cities.

It presumes that the existing processes haven't researched most choices 
for Europe, Asia, or North America.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:05:50 -0400

--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:55 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Indeed, random was the wrong word.  That word is often used
> incorrectly.   The correct word is "arbitrary".
> 
> It is frankly entirely arbitrary to suggest a particular city,
> in terms of the a directed discussion about the /approach/ of
> choosing cities.
> 
> It presumes that the existing processes haven't researched
> most choices for Europe, Asia, or North America.

Dave,

Without suggesting that Frankfurt has not been carefully
researched (I gather it has and have some personal experience
with meeting arrangements, not just individual visits that leads
me to agree with the conclusion, whether you approve of such
personal experiences or not), I don't think you can dismiss it
as either "random" or even "arbitrary".  

One of the major criteria that has often been suggested --I
think even by you-- is "major airline hub".   As far as I know,
there are four such hubs in Europe: London (where we have met
and are planning to meet again), Paris (where we have met),
Amsterdam (where we have met), and Frankfurt.  I would consider
Copenhagen, Munich (where we have met), and a few other places
as secondary hubs; YMMD.  

I think its being the only place on that first list where we
have not met makes "why not Frankfurt" an entirely reasonable
and actually highly focused and predictable question.  If he had
said "why not Köln-Bonn" or "why not Nice" or any of dozens of
other smaller, non-hub airports, "arbitrary" would have been in
order.  But "Frankfurt" is no more arbitrary than Chicago,
Dallas, or New York -- there may be perfectly good reasons to
avoid all three (although we have met in Chicago and Dallas),
but it seems to me that asking about _any_ airline hub city that
significant can certainly not be dismissed as "arbitrary".

    john

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:20:14 +0200

Why not consider Istanbul? It's another nice harbor city.

Has a series of world class hotels like Grand Hyatt, Hilton,
InterContinental, Radisson Blu but also less expensive hotels, close to
each other.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of ext Geoff
> Mulligan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:47 PM
> To: Ole Jacobsen
> Cc: Richard Shockey; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> So then why not consider, London, Paris (not the Concorde Lafayette),
Frankfurt,
> Amsterdam?

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:22:57 +0200

Istanbul, Dubai, and similar places will not allow all of us in the
community to participate in the meetings.... 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:20 PM
To: ext Geoff Mulligan; Ole Jacobsen
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Richard Shockey
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

Of ext Geoff
Frankfurt,

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:42:36 -0400

Let me say that a different way.  We sometimes have to tolerate
countries, like the US, who a fussy about visas or immigration
procedures for people coming from specific other countries.  I
wish we didn't.  But, as soon as a country says "if you have a
passport from X, you aren't getting in, don't even bother to
apply for a visa", they should be off our list of possibilities.

   john

--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 22:22 +0200 "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN
- IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Istanbul, Dubai, and similar places will not allow all of us
> in the community to participate in the meetings.... 
> 
> 
> Behalf Of Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> InterContinental, Radisson Blu but also less expensive hotels,
> close to each other.

---

From: "Ole Jacobsen (ole)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:47:44 +0000

Yes, and sadly that rules out really good venues such as Kuala Lumpur, quite possibly the least expensive (hotel wise) suitable location in Asia.

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher
http://cisco.com/ipj

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:50:17 -0600

> apply for a visa", they should be off our list of possibilities.

Agreed.

Dare I say that we need a requirements document? ;-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:56:58 -0700

> Yes, and sadly that rules out really good venues such as Kuala
> Lumpur, quite possibly the least expensive (hotel wise) suitable
> location in Asia.

The IAOC researched this recently, quite thoroughly; Ole and I are both
biased towards wanting it.  (I lived there for a year.)

This is worth mentioning because the MY formal rule is not strict
prohibition but a formal visa process that is so onerous as to equate to
a prohibition.

d/

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:15:25 +0200

> > But, as soon as a country says "if you have a

It is sad to hear this. I actually never heard such restrictions for
people travelling to Turkey.

BTW: A lot of countries, including Israel, don't need a visa for Turkey.
For others it is technically a non-issue to get it at the border.

Beside many European cities there are direct flights to Istanbul from:
Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, New York, Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul,
Bangkok, and Tel Aviv.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> From: ext Ole Jacobsen (ole) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:48 PM
> To: John C Klensin
> Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Ersue, Mehmet (NSN -
DE/Munich); ext
> Geoff Mulligan; Richard Shockey; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Yes, and sadly that rules out really good venues such as Kuala Lumpur,
quite possibly
> the least expensive (hotel wise) suitable location in Asia.
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> http://cisco.com/ipj
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
>

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:31:25 -0700 (PDT)

We HAVE a requirements document.

Ole

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:44:53 -0600

> We HAVE a requirements document.

Aha, so it's just that people at the mic haven't read the draft. That
never happens at one of our meetings, does it? ;-)

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find this requirements document in the
datatracker...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Aug 2012 22:04:32 -0000

>prohibition but a formal visa process that is so onerous as to equate to

Wouldn't that rule out the United States?  It is my impression that
getting a US visa for someone with a Cuban or Iranian passport is
effectively impossible.

R's,
John

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:16:48 -0400

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> writes:
    Michael> but please, not Paris in the summer... nor Orlando on
    Michael> spring break)

ps: I'm really upset about Orlando in March.  We did that in back in
December 1998, and it seemed a failure to me.  Maybe this will be a
remote meeting for me. (go rps WG, go!!)

The hallways were WAY WAY too small for the people, thank god they
didn't serve the cookies there, and the social event... nice band, but
so loud, one couldn't talk to each other.

I understand that perhaps we won't be in the same conference centre, and
maybe NBC Universal will do a better job... but.

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:37:40 -0600

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:36:25 -0400

>>>>> "Ole" == Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> city and not picking various cities throughout the world.

    Ole> Oh, I see. My reading was that we would focus on small number of 
    Ole> cities in each region, especially since we cannot depend on ONE
    Ole> being always available for our dates, host and sponsorship 
    Ole> notwithstanding.

I understood what Ole did.
I think that over a decade, the small number would go from ~7 to perhaps
2 in each region.  That's because we'd wind up signing multi-year
contracts with hotels that we liked. (which is, I understand, why we
repeated in Minneapolis)

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:30:01 -0700

Frankfurt as the Minneapolis of Europe: central, well-connected, cold,
unglamorous.  -T

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>   - Unlike Paris, London and Amsterdam, it's not a great tourist
>> attraction, so conceivably it would be cheaper.
>
>> connection in Frankfurt, so a meeting in Frankfurt would reduce the amount
>> of flights.
>
>>>>>> Frankfurt, Amsterdam?

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:33:40 -0700 (PDT)

> Frankfurt as the Minneapolis of Europe: central, well-connected, cold,

Plus expensive and generally unsuitable for a meeting such as ours, 
until the day Bit's and Bites turns into a 200,000 square foot 
tradeshow, just kidding! :-)

I agree with the well-connected, it's my "main gateway" to Europe
these days, especially because of the great train service, getting
to Amsterdam for example is very easy.

Ole

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:01:09 -0400

Minneapolis is infinitely more glamorous Frankfurt .. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tim
Bray
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:30 PM
To: Geoff Mulligan
Cc: Dave Crocker; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat?

>>> Frankfurt is a city in Germany.  I believe the IETF has never been
there.
>>
>> Two more tidbits:
>>   - It's a huge aviation hub. There are direct flights from 
>> everywhere, similar to CDG, Heathrow, or Schiphol
>>> accomplished by someone's randomly throwing out the names of cities 
>>> for a discussion like this, especially when threads like these 
>>> always have a great deal of trouble staying focused on the 
>>> /principle/ rather than haggling the details.
>>
>> collective pain. Most people from the US going to Prague, would have 
>> a connection in Frankfurt, so a meeting in Frankfurt would reduce the 
>> amount of flights.
>
>>>>> paris appears to have broad crime and work-ethic patterns that 
>>>>> also are problematic, not just at the concorde.
>>>>>

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:19:39 +0300

The tourist website www.minneapolis.org uses the slogan "City by Nature". 

I think "An infinitely more glamorous Frankfurt" would be an improvement.
.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:58:14 -0700

> Frankfurt as the Minneapolis of Europe: central, well-connected, cold,
Also home of the ECB and the Bundesbank which shows when you try to book 
a large event into the big hotels near the hauptbahnhof.

"The why have we not met in this large city which I think is more 
appropriate then some of our others choices" aspect of this thrice 
annual discussion seems a bit played out.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:32:16 -0400

[RS> ] If you prefer a globally dysfunctional airport and a city run by
bankers ..then yes its potentially more 'glamorous'.  Granted they do have a
world class Christmas Market in season.  If you want the center of Europe ..
Munchen. You could think about Berlin but then you have a totally non
existent disfunctional airport.  Wait a few years out and you can rethink
Washington DC. A totally functional 5 runway international airport .. a full
metro rail from the airport to the city and all of Washington's many
nonexistent charms. 

.

On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> Of Tim Bray

---

From: "JOHNSON, ALASTAIR (ALASTAIR)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:07:16 +0200

> cookie-eating mob that it was a good location. 

I understand that New Zealand was felt to be too expensive[1] and the travel was too far for many[2]. NZ also suffers from a lack of conference facilities that are functional *and* have suitable accommodation near them to fit the IETF size. 

As much as I'd like to have NZ as a venue, since I could visit my family...

aj
A New Zealander, but not living in NZ. Vaguely affiliated with people who looked into hosting IETF in NZ.
[1] NZ is surprisingly expensive for hotel accommodation in the major cities, and transport can be expensive or difficult. Flights can also be difficult since there isn't mass competition into the country unless you're trying to jump the Tasman.
[2] 3 hours to East Cost AU, 10+ hours to Asia[3], 13+ hours to US, 24+ hours to Europe. Travel times would really hurt here.
[3] For the bits of Asia that are directly connected (JP, SG, HK, CN, KR). If you need to connect (e.g. India) you could be looking at 20+ hours too.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:49:33 +0100

> I understand that New Zealand was felt to be too expensive[1] and the travel was too far for many[2]. NZ also suffers from a lack of conference facilities that are functional *and* have suitable ac…

The venue that was actually proposed was big enough (I did the maths)
and surrounded by hotels. Travel cost and duration was an issue, for
sure.

   Brian