Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Mon, 26 March 2007 16:54 UTC

Return-path: <68attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVsTD-0000PD-PH; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:54:59 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVsTC-0000P2-HW for 68attendees@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:54:58 -0400
Received: from omr9.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVsTB-0005ku-9x for 68attendees@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:54:58 -0400
Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr9.mgt.hosting.dc2.netsol.com [10.49.6.72]) by omr9.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2QGsvHD006799 for <68attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:54:57 -0400
Received: (qmail 32584 invoked by uid 78); 26 Mar 2007 16:54:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andy@andybierman.com@75.83.33.198) by ns-omr9.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 16:54:56 -0000
Message-ID: <4607FAC7.1040007@andybierman.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:54:31 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine
References: <460692B6.70603@andybierman.com> <BA477D52-B39E-4F11-AD3E-7EC57CEAC11B@cisco.com> <20070326164419.GB25751@Sun.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20070326164419.GB25751@Sun.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <68attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/68attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:68attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 68attendees-bounces@ietf.org

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:50:08AM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
>>                                                         That's not  
>> the objective. The objective is, as you say, fairness among those who  
>> already do.
> 
> The objective should be to maximize IETF participation from people who
> want to participate while being "fair."

Sorry I brought this thread up again.
I didn't intend to rehash the notion of fair.
IMO, micro-parsing it out into little costs and weighing them
is counter-productive.  Just getting a better mix of
non-North American venues would be fine, without micro-managing
how that should be done.


Andy

> 
> Current demographics shouldn't be weighed too heavily as IETF meetings
> might help stimulate broader participation from locals.
> 
> Holding an IETF meeting in an expensive city does not help, even if that
> city is near to many participants, unless there are no inexpensive
> cities near them.  Thus Prague is a much better location in continental
> Europe than Paris, for example (my food expenses in Prague pale by
> comparison to Paris).  Of course, transportation options should be part
> of the equation as well, so Paris may still be a better location than
> Prague (though airfare in Europe is quite reasonable nowadays).
> 
> And as you point out hotel options matter.  Many of us work late hours
> during IETF meetings, so being able to stay at the conference hotel
> matters (which means venue size and expense matters), and if that cannot
> be then late hour transportation and safety matters too.  (I did not
> stay at the conference venue hotel at Prague, but I was not far and
> could take the metro or walk and did not mind; others may not have
> enjoyed that as much as I did.)  I'm not sure where I'd rank Prague on
> that basis as I enjoyed late night walks there, but that's quite
> subjective; Minneapolis is certainly OK.
> 
> Nico


_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
68ATTENDEES@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees