IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Hotel situation

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Tue, 05 January 2016 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 3782A1A86FF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:52:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 DGZGTxTLD-vT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D114D1A8A15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.222.64.52] (unknown [166.170.22.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E14185405B9; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:52:13 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1601050805290.17111@rabdullah.local>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:52:12 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7223A3C7-2CE5-464C-83EE-D8044CEAAE88@puck.nether.net>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <CABmDk8n2TFvmoMVa8t3FOGXtKF9GUii=wrEyMpJucAoLzCix1Q@mail.gmail.com> <D38CB535C27A8E9D7B77BC2F@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <568B89BD.1040008@gmail.com> <7E1588330F38B7D9A45B189E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <902D6B2A-7224-43A4-93D8-685E62D7542D@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|5d0b573d1b2ce2f5229d83cd4276a170s04EHY03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|902D6B2A-7224-43A4-93D8-685E62D7542D@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <E628312DB341971BB1958397@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1601050805290.17111@rabdullah.local>
To: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BIfk7qyjcZQQCPQqsHRiWivbwPY>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, IETF Discussion <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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:52:19 -0000

I know for NANOG the Bay Area is a big attendance draw but costs are also much higher compared to other venues. 

Jared Mauch

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> wrote:
> 
> Speaking as the chair of said committee, no "maximizing meeting fee 
> income" is not and (at least in my opinion) should not be the primary 
> reason for selecting a venue. There *is* obviously some predictable 
> correlation between location and attendance number, for example if we 
> have a meeting in San Jose or San Francisco we would expect a larger 
> than average number of "locals" to attend because there are many of 
> them in that area. But it's not clear that such a peak in numbers 
> would benefit the IETF in the long run, in other words, it isn't clear 
> that such extra attendees would become regular contributors.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email