Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

   This script that you and I are following has become a cliche.  To break out 
of it and conduct serious discussion, we need to think harder about underlying 
assumptions, as well as treating asserted data with some skepticism.


Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> De-coupling the two issues is a fine idea on paper and in my 
> experience almost unworkable in practice. Hosts DO want some
> say in where we meet and they DO want to be near a place where
> they can provide "local" support (if only from a remote office).


1. You are quite wrong.  Most conferences, association meetings, and the like, 
choose a venue independent of sponsorship.  Hence sponsorship is about 
sponsoring, not about doing the grunt work.  Long ago, we developed a meeting 
model based on some coupling of roles and services, which are so entrenched any 
attempt to suggest changing it gets responses that are firm, reflexive and not 
supported by the facts.  Responding rigidly and defensively is not a good way to 
pursue necessary changes.  It is a good way to ensure that persistent problems 
persist.

2. The IETF insists on a model that performs what it claims is an optimization 
when a) it's highly local while ignoring larger inefficiencies, and b) probably 
isn't all that optimal locally.

When looking at persistent problems, improvement is never achieved by starting 
to defend core assumptions that are, in fact, the primary reasons for the problem.

By insisting that the IETF start with choosing a host, most of our meeting venue 
problems ensue.  It ensures all of the instabilities we repeatedly experience. 
It ensures hidden costs -- thereby making claims of reduced cost, by virtue of 
having hosts perform tasks off the IETF's books -- that offset supposed savings. 
  Note, for example, the substantially higher cost of taxis because the Dublin 
facility is so remote.  While taxi cost might seem a silly, small point, it 
becomes a large one when applied to the entire population of attendees, as well 
as applied repeatedly if attendees want to get elsewhere.  (Yes, the added bus 
service helps, but not enough.)

When this core error is highlighted, we always get series of tautological 
arguments attempting to assert that the error is required.  It isn't.  There is 
more than sufficient experience in the rest of the world to show that the error 
need not be made.


> I would be wonderful if we had a pool of money from lots of
> vendors that simply took care of all costs and logistics and
> we then just get to pick the venue. Oh, wait, there is such
> a pool, it's called "Organizational Membership in ISOC".

Again, the IETF walked down a path that created a strategic problem and would 
rather continue an operational mode that ensure significant IETF meeting 
problems periodically, rather than fix the underlying problem.

In this case, I think that trade association funding details could be relevant: 
  They have both "membership" and "sponsorship" and it works fine.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees