Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 16 August 2010 16:14 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA023A67FE for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-ntXW9aGKIF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1B63A680D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.176] (ppp-68-122-73-240.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.73.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7GGEvPS020276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:15:02 -0700
Message-ID: <4C6963F4.1020600@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:14:44 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
References: <6F187B4328FA3BAEF5820D39@PST.JCK.COM> <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB177049A8E9A644D@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB177049A8E9A644D@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:09:44 -0700
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:14:30 -0000
On 8/16/2010 8:29 AM, Ross Callon wrote: > I am not sure whether it is safe to extrapolate this to the conclusion that > people don't want to rotate between just a few cities on a long term basis. By "people", you presumably mean the well-funded, frequent travelers who like to be entertained, as well as get work done. Is that the population of attendees we want to have controlling venue choice? As sampling methodology doesn't this, perhaps, leave out some other potentially useful attendees? Note that other groups that meet regularly often choose a single venue and have no problem with that model. We need to be careful about setting our priorities. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Re: Varying meeting venue -- why? John C Klensin
- RE: Varying meeting venue -- why? Ross Callon
- RE: Varying meeting venue -- why? Ross Callon
- Re: Varying meeting venue -- why? Dave CROCKER