Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 14 August 2013 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B532111E8170 for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qkZu8AX+XitV for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA11721F9CFB for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-07-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71CF28A031 for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:33:27 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: 87attendees@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130814153327.GK3865@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <C4413723-4E83-44D8-967D-C61564F33843@isoc.org> <CAKKJt-dCsJKzkuWmtPYaLct_9zzbe2HCXBB52QNerC4hHKaqWQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D5C64C2-1187-42A7-B237-8AAEC4810D57@isoc.org> <D1CEAB47-2B80-4FA9-9B18-C018BF10E794@checkpoint.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D1CEAB47-2B80-4FA9-9B18-C018BF10E794@checkpoint.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review
X-BeenThere: 87attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <87attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/87attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:87attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:33:36 -0000

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 02:40:15PM +0000, Yoav Nir wrote:
> 
> I don't. Once you've had to fly in, it doesn't make much of a difference whether you've flown a couple of hours (like if you come to Vancouver from Toronto), or from the other side of the world.
> 

This isn't my experience.  I have often flown a couple hours and then
gone directly to a meeting -- it's not much different to me than
driving a couple hours (and indeed, is often less stressful).  But
trans-oceanic (or trans-continental, for that matter) flights seem to
be much worse.

My personal limit appears to be somewhere between 2 and 3 hours travel
time.  Within that, I don't seem to find the trip any more tiring than
I used to find commuting by car to an office.  Outside of that, I
usually want to rest.  This is as true by train, however, so I don't
think it's the conveyancce that matters.  

Maybe we could self-select, though.  We could add a checkbox to the
registration form, "I won't complain too loudly on the attendees list
if the hotel bumps me."  In the event there's a problem, the
secretariat could provide the list to the hotel.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com