Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ hub airport discussion

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 10:26 AM 8/4/2011, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

>So there is obviously no point in doing surveys since Joe Touch knows
>exactly why people might prefer one location over another. Sheesh.
>
>For the record, I do not believe we asked any questions about
>"tourism" in the survey, but you know best, Joe!

no, but to be fair, since QC is the capital of Quebec, most of us 
(likely) assumed it wouldn't be a small regional airport (such as it 
is). Maybe it was just me, but I didn't research this aspect before 
choosing a site, nor do I remember anyone offering the stark 
differences in travel between Van and QC in the survey. Had this 
airport facility/access aspect been told to us *when* we were asked 
to "vote", I predict the vote would have turned out differently. At a 
minimum, no one could have said "we weren't warned about this in 
choosing QC" at this stage of the game.

In the end, Van is a major international airport, and QC was at 
minimum a secondary city. That part should have been front and center 
when given the choice in the first place.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

James



>Ole
>
>
>Ole J. Jacobsen
>Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
>Cisco Systems
>Tel: [phone]   Mobile: [phone]
>E-mail: [e-mail]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
>Skype: organdemo
>
>
>On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 8/4/2011 8:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> > >
> > > You said:
> > >
> > > "Put simply, please leave us out of your vacation plans."
> > >
> > > Please define "your" in the above statement. The selection was made
> > > (partially) based on an IETF community survey.
> >
> > Any response that indicates a preference based on vacation plans is from
> > someone in the "YOUR" bin.
> >
> > "US" are the rest of us who come to get work done, who appreciate 
> a reasonable
> > threshold of services, but who don't vote based on side-trips, canoeing,
> > biking, soccer, etc.
> >
> > > Your statement reminds me a bit of the arguments heard prior to IETF
> > > in China. "We don't believe in their Internet policies, we shouldn't
> > > go there!" Nice slap in the face to the several hundred IETF
> > > participants from China.
> >
> > Hmmm. And "we don't like US immigration policies, we shouldn't go 
> there" (or
> > should go to Canada in preference) hasn't been a multi-year slap on several
> > hundred IETF participants from the US?
> >
> > There are many factors that determine whether people attend. IMO, it's
> > reasonable to consider issues that affect those who earnestly 
> want to come to
> > do work - including visa issues, legal constraints on attendees 
> (as with the
> > first attempt at China). But there's little we can or should do 
> about issues
> > of personal preference (not liking China's Internet policies, not 
> liking many
> > countries fingerprinting, etc.).
> >
> > Issues of pure personal preference - e.g., vacations, local entertainment,
> > etc. - have no business (literally) in affecting the site selection of a
> > business meeting.
> >
> > Joe
> >
>_______________________________________________
>81attendees mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees