Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good job!

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

> That all said, I am very much of the mindset that we should find 6 locations that work well and
> just rotate amongst those for x years and then re-evaluate.  I'd be perfectly happy if we met in
> Minneapolis once every two years.  And, I think the other 5 could easily be determined based on
> past meetings.  Of course, I am biased in that I don't have time to sight see during the meeting
> week, so I don't consider the tourism appeal of a city as an important factor in choosing a venue
> for a business meeting.
>
> Mary.
My recollection is that rotating through a small number of cities is bad in terms of attracting sponsors - most sponsors want to host a meeting which is in a city which is somewhat close to their main location or central to their main country. If we did pick a few locations to rotate between, I am suspecting that we might want more than six - for example while I also am fine with Minnesota, I also think that Vancouver has worked out well more than once and I suspect that we might want one or two east coast North America locations (perhaps one in Canada and one in the US). Similarly in both Europe and Asia we have had some IETF's in good locations, but I can't think of one or two places per continent that stand out as being particularly appropriate to return to.

Ross