Re: IETF hotel selection mode and a proposal (was" Re: Hilton BA is Booked already?)

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 9:24 AM -0500 1/12/16, John C Klensin wrote:

>  But that gets back to an example of the same old set of
>  tradeoffs --and my desire that those involved in the process be
>  a lot more transparent about it.  Your comment above is
>  reasonable and even obvious.  But there are cities (apparently
>  including Buenos Aires) where there are approximately zero
>  hotels that have enough rooms to give us an 800 or 900 room
>  block.
>
>  So, would you propose a hard rule of "stop considering any city
>  unless we could got a room block of at least N rooms", with N
>  somewhere in the range of 800 or 900?   Unlike the variety of
>  more subjective rules, it would be very clear and easy to
>  interpret.    My assumption about IETF 95 is that, despite
>  understanding and considering the disadvantages of smaller
>  hotels, the decision-makers believed they had a sufficient "go
>  to Buenos Aires" mandate to override hotel or room block size
>  considerations.  I presume that, for the future, we could change
>  that if we had consensus that, e.g., minimum room block size was
>  a firm requirement.

I'm not fond of hard rules, and would be fine if we had some clear 
information as to why this city was chosen despite the room block 
issue.  Which of course is an example of your calls for transparency. 
Maybe a semi-rigid rule that can be overridden with good cause (sort 
of a SHOULD rather than a MUST)?

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Secrecy is as essential to Intelligence as vestments and
incense to a Mass, or darkness to a Spiritualist seance, and
must at all costs be maintained, quite irrespective of whether
or not it serves any purpose.             --Malcolm Muggeridge