Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 18 December 2015 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC371B2C1C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:59:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBSBnZawPFRS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:59:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59CEE1B394D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:59:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter36-d.gandi.net (mfilter36-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.167]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D09A80CA; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:59:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter36-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.195]) by mfilter36-d.gandi.net (mfilter36-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2dcn7HGHOLyv; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:59:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 93.199.254.229
Received: from nar.local (p5DC7FEE5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.254.229]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B076A80CB; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:59:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <567481AC.7060107@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:59:08 +0100
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09C09@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719B42.2040902@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1512160924570.39773@rabdullah.local> <D296DF8F.8DA39%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com> <1DEF233B-FBA8-4750-AB4B-3E0F55822C9E@isoc.org> <D297326B.8DCF8%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com> <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.com> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.com> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5XB79aY_1wFjM0Pr13IR_7ELHfU>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:59:26 -0000

Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Let me ask, since you clearly have opinions on such matters - what would you think of such an arrangement? What am I missing in such a proposal?

You addressed this message specifically to Michal.

But being a foreigner to most people on this list :-), I think I can
answer this as well.

Great plan!

There is additional value in repeat performances that is rarely being
discussed here.  And going to places that we know will work takes a lot
of uncertainty out of the planning, uncertainty that only generates more
uncertainty (will X come to the meeting in this strange place?  Is it
even worth having a meeting if X isn't there and Y will have visa
problems ...).

So please do go ahead with that plan.  (And please endure the kvetching
-- the majority on this will be a silent one.)

Grüße, Carsten

PS.: And, yes, the Prague meetings have been great repeat performances.