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

+1 - speaking for myself as a long-time IETF participant (10+ years),
Quebec City was easily one of the 3 best venues.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 81attendees-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:81attendees-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:10 PM
> To: 81attendees@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good job!
> 
> Preface:
> 
>      Perhaps it is not unprecedented, but I do not recall seeing such a strongly
> positive post-meeting set of postings before this, especially in the face of a
> noticeably thin set of complaints.  Whatever Quebec City's magic, it worked
> impressively well and that definitely should count for quite a lot.
> 
>     In particular, since real attendees at recent meetings must be treated as
> the sizable core population for future meetings, that reaction overrides most
> other concerns.
> 
> (Just to be thorough -- the concerns that I saw raised that seemed to have a
> base of agreement were:  Delta's network, a tendency for very cold meeting
> rooms, and high food prices.  I also heard some complaints about food at the
> Hilton, but not on the list.  Were there others?)
> 
> 
> Regularly-scheduled programming:
> 
> As for some of the long-standing points about meeting at non-hub venues:
> 
> 
> On 8/1/2011 5:32 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> > SFO-ORD = about 4 hours
> >
> > ORD-YQB = about 2 hours
> 
> plus transit time /in/ ORD. Changing planes typically adds at least 2-3 hours to
> the total trip time, counting landing and takeoff and in-airport transfer.
> 
> In addition, non-hub venues have much more fragile and limited connectivity.
> Quebec city is serviced by a couple of regional carriers, to only a few cities,
> codeshares with major airlines notwithstanding.
> 
> Transitions always make a process more fragile and carry additional cost.
> 
> (This includes opportunities for luggage or the passenger to miss the
> connection.  I enjoyed both of these excellent experiences on this trip -- one
> going and one returning -- by way of demonstrating that these are not matters of
> theoretical concern.)
> 
> On a good trip, the extra hop to a non-hub location typically costs 4-8 hours
> round-trip, often also costing more money.
> 
> That's 500-1000 extra person days spent in transit.
> 
> I have never understood why we are so cavalier about the aggregated cost.
> 
> 
> 
> > On 8/1/2011 2:57 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> >>     Where it gets crazy is if there are not adequate
> >> flights to support meeting attendance (if we wanted to have the IETF in Santa
> >> Barbara, I'd be happy, but the rest of you would be whining up a storm), if
> >> routes or layovers are just plain silly (I once flew Kampala->Cairo via
> >> Lilongwe and Johannesburg, and don't get me started on San
> >> Francisco->Bangalore), or such.
> >>
> >> I don't think we have an appropriate emoticon for "I am so very OVER people
> >> whining about not being able to get end to end on a single airplane"...
> 
> Presumably there is an important distinction between whining and serious
> criticism.  I say this with some doubt, since postings like this are quite
> common and appear to confuse the two.
> 
> For example, I challenge folks to find anyone having asserted the requirement to
> get "end to end on a single airplane".  However it does evoke a convenient basis
> for dismissing serious discussion.
> 
> One might even say that most of the whining about venue choice is by the people
> attaching the label whining to efforts at serious.
> 
> IETF lists do get silly postings and one would think, by now, that we would all
> know how to distinguish between them and serious postings. Instead we often use
> the silly postings as an excuse to dismiss the serious ones.
> 
> Tsk. Tsk.
> 
> Discussion about travel to IETF meetings tends to be dominated by highly
> experienced travelers who already spend a great deal of their lives on planes
> and in foreign countries and for whom an extra connection really is in the noise.
> 
> As such, it means that we ignore or denigrate those who do not travel as much
> but who want to come to a meeting to do work.  For these latter folk, extra
> hassles (and costs) are significant, whether we respect that or not.
> 
> d/
> 
> --
> 
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> 81attendees mailing list
> 81attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees