Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111
"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Fri, 08 January 2016 15:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
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 C78AB1A8A7D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:39:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.156
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIM_INVALID=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 vKcijAG8MVyM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4904C1A8A77 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAD82004F4E8; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:39:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=h HRK5dDNcV6tABLeGHm23We/NVc=; b=b6lYC/rmVLqM7z2t1yWaCnG2X5ToOyLyy DDw5ZV0bKbzmSYBiyJmn7Mr2mVoIOav1xvNg6wBmiYcQQKIczaB6x1AGUIkXwkzT nKJYEp+9qimO8I0rb8ttlJLJLKfgZ//M7CoqWE+n5AUFBhyx/mDozxsE63CYVVJu /1fQRpYpQ4=
Received: from [172.16.131.1] (mobile-166-176-251-85.mycingular.net [166.176.251.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leslie@oceanpurl.net) by homiemail-a107.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA8EE2004F4E0; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:39:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:39:11 -0500
Message-ID: <7EA5887F-FD0E-49E7-B164-E7BC37C635DB@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <92612612B8B7E9BC3EE54AB7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <20160105210603.26728.22600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <AB383E7EE1632A97AC7D544E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2AED06ED-932E-45A5-860B-93FC2E78BE27@isoc.org> <02FAD6B271183972FE511EF0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1601071125550.21147@rabdullah.local> <92612612B8B7E9BC3EE54AB7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5187)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/D0rK3gzL9edv-ABno8MrTuciqUk>
Cc: 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: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:39:29 -0000
The other question that has been on my mind is whether or how we continue to meet as a community. In my personal opinion, one of the most important things about the IETF *is* the community and having the opportunity to engage one on one. I go to IETF meetings for hallway conversations as much as anything else. But — in the span of the next 10 years, it’s not clear to me if we can or should find non-meeting ways to achieve those effects, and get our work done. Absent discussion within and direction from the community on where it thinks we’re headed on that front, I (as an IAOC member) was not comfortable with agreeing to hotel commitments 8+ years out. It is my understanding that we, in fact, have the ability to cancel the contract for IETF 111 with a survivable penalty a few years out. I.e., it’s a good deal for current course and speed, and if that changes significantly before we get to the 3 year window, we have the ability to reorganize. I realize that doesn’t address all of the issues you raised, but hopefully it helps at the broad-brushstroke level. Leslie. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- On 8 Jan 2016, at 3:26, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:41 -0800 Ole Jacobsen > <olejacobsen@me.com> wrote: > >> ... >>> Independent of the specific concerns, complaints, and general >>> whining about particular venues or choices, the thing I, and >>> apparently others, have heard most consistently in recent >>> years involves people in the community saying "we should >>> reprioritize so-and-so" and the IAOC or meetings committee >>> responding "can't do that because we are working three years >>> out". >> >> No, I hope not. What you have heard (or should have heard) is >> that there are incompatible requirements, kind of like the >> "cheap, fast, reliable, pick two!" joke. So every choice has >> a set of consequences and there is no such thing as a perfect >> choice. > > Speaking personally, I'm less upset about the particular choices > than many others seem to be. That is in part because, as you > have perhaps noticed, I am increasingly weighing how much I > really need to go to a particular meeting and deciding against > it. As an example, an implication of that is that I can look at > the specifics of the BA hotel debate and handling from the safe > distance of knowing that the odds of my making that trip were > very low before that situation made the aggravation and/or costs > higher. Maybe that is good for the IETF on balance, even (or > especially) if it makes me less likely to volunteer for roles > that would require me to show up f2f. > > I also understand the special circumstances, but, while 1-1-1 > has been repeated several times lately, Honolulu is not "North > America" (especially in an environment in which Vancouver has > been presented as "Asia-Pacific") and Honolulu, Dallas, Prague, > Yokohama, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Seoul doesn't look a lot like > 1-1-1. So maybe 1-1-1 is now interpreted as "Western > Hemisphere, Europe, East Asia" but, when I compare the airfares > I can use (remember I've got some special requirements in that > area) to BA to those to Tokyo, there is a less than 10% > difference so one of the goals of 1-1-1, to balance the costs > becomes meaningless, at least over that 2+ year period. > > What I am concerned about is accountability and responsiveness > to the community. I've seen Fred's note that says the IAOC > really is in charge and making the decisions. You have said > similar things and I believe both of you. At the same time, > I've heard recent IAOC members respond to questions by > attributing decisions to the meetings committee and being really > out of the IAOC's control. I've also heard the "three years as > an excuse" claim made, not just by us whiners in the community > but by recent IESG members. I presume all of you are being > truthful but that leads to a conclusion that things are a little > out of the control of the community somewhere... and it is > _that_ which concerns me. > > One of those accountability issues is that I think the community > has made it extremely clear that alternate hotel arrangements > should be in place and announced concurrent with the > announcement of the primary hotel and opening of registrations. > We used to be able to do that, even with less than three years > lead time. Of late, we haven't been, in spite of, presumably, > nearly three years to prepare. I think the community is > entitled to understand why (or what is wrong with my logic) and > who is responsible and/or what is being done to fix it... in > less than three years. > > Coming back to the "cheap, fast, reliable, pick two!" joke, to > which I'm very sensitive, that joke has another side, which it > that it ought to be possible, at least after the fact, to ask > "ok, which two did you pick?" and get a straight answer. That > is what accountability is all about because the community needs > that information to provide informed advice on the choices. It > also needs that advice to be effective it is is provided. If > what it hears in response to advice is that there is no point > giving it because circumstances and priorities will change > enough by the time (in, e.g., three or 5 1/2 or 12 years), there > is a different, but closely related, problem (bringing me back > to the specific cause of my note and question to Ray). But, > instead, what we get is a longer list of criteria than three, an > indication that different priorities are used under different > circumstances and perhaps from meeting to meeting, and that is > all -- a situation that is indistinguishable from the > information available to the community from "we are going to > make those decisions in secret and feel no obligation to tell > you". > > That problem is somewhat exacerbated by the observation that the > IAOC has chosen to not post hotel contracts, even redacted > versions, for many years (if ever, and despite promises at > various times) in what seems to me to be aclear violation of the > transparency requirement of Section 7 of RFC 4071. The > community almost certainly does not need to know dollar amounts > and other arrangements that would fall under "reasonable > confidentiality obligations", but, precisely in line with the > above comments about choices of priorities, the community should > be able to understand specific guarantees and tradeoffs. > > In particular, almost everyone who has ever negotiated a hotel > contract for a moderately large (or larger) meeting knows that > relationships among meeting room costs (including the > differences between meeting room charges to someone with a block > of rooms in the hotel and someone coming in "off the street" and > wanting to rent/use the meeting rooms alone), guarantees about > guest room revenue (or equivalent), guest room discounts from > "rack rate", guarantees about use of hotel catering services and > other add-on costs/ profit items, and arrangements about > "complementary" rooms or upgrades are all part of the > negotiation. Such things as the ratio between the number of > rooms the hotel guarantees to have available for the group > (i.e., the "room block size") and the number of rooms (or room > revenue) the group guarantees to fill also often go into the > mix. That is all complicated and most of us know it is > complicated, but that doesn't seem to me to be an excuse for > systematically leaving the community in the dark about what is > going on and what priorities are being used. > > I can remember times and places when the IETF got meeting rooms > (sometimes all but the plenary ballrooms, sometimes those but > not the smaller spaces) for nearly free in return for other > commitments, commitments that sometimes increased costs > (relative to what might otherwise have been possible) to > individual participants. Maybe a good tradeoff, maybe not, but, > in the IASA model, a subject on which the IAOC (or the meetings > committee, or the IAD specifically) ought to be able to be open > and candid with the community. Again, I'm not asking for > violations of reasonable confidentiality, only that the > community be told what the powers-that-be are trying to optimize > and that we have reasonable input into those choices. > > We are not getting it now. > >> ... > >>> Even without believing that, if working three years ahead >>> effectively suppresses priority determination by the >>> community by making any such efforts ineffective within any >>> reasonable time, then 5 1/2 is much worse. >> >> What specific priority, related to this announcement, is it >> that you think could, should or would change? That we start >> meeting at university campuses again, radically reduce the >> number of paralell sessions, have more or fewer meetings per >> year, radically change remote participation options? Those >> are all things that COULD happen and SHOULD happen if the >> community agrees, but given how slow anything moves in the >> IETF, would it not make sense to at least assume things will >> continue more or less as currently when making deals for >> resources that are decidedly limited and time sensitive? > > First, I hope we can keep this discussion as positive and > focused as possible, specifically without introducing strawman > options like university campuses. We seem to be working on > "radically changing remote participation options" and making > some progress -- not as much or as rapidly as I would like -- > but progress nonetheless. If some comments in these threads are > indicative, BA may strain those arrangements more than some > prior meetings and, as a likely remote participant (see above), > I'm personally significantly more concerned about them working > at least as well as they have in the last few meetings than I am > about how close together hotels are in that city. In any event, > it would be very disappointing if those efforts did not bring > about some measurable changes within the three year window. > > More broadly and just as an example, the number of meeting rooms > we need has been cited repeatedly as a constraint on meeting > hotels and facilities. A sampling of agendas from Yokohama and > a few meetings circa 5 and 10 years earlier indicates that the > number of parallel WG sessions is holding constant at about > eight. That is up from six around IETF 56, but March 2003 was a > long time ago, pre-IASA but still after the expansion to include > Friday morning sessions. So, if that is the constraint, it > isn't changing much. > > What appears to have changed in the meeting room requirements is > that number of smaller rooms needed to accommodate > organizational requirements of the IETF and related bodies. > That is anecdotal, derived from walking down the halls of small > meeting/ conference room areas of the last few meetings I'm been > too, because I haven't been able to get any data. I (and > others) have asked for those numbers, who is using those spaces, > and what the trends look like several times and haven't gotten > them. The utilization ratios -- the amount of time those rooms > are actually used for IETF-critical meetings versus as private > work or conversation areas -- would also be good to know if the > community is to make informed decisions. Certainly the number > of "small" meeting (and similar) rooms we require to qualify a > venue is not confidential commercial information. It is > relevant to your questions above because I believe that, if the > community were asked whether we required all of those rooms if > the cost was venues that are less attractive along some of the > other selection dimensions, the answer might well be some > differences in priorities from what they are if demands or > requests for all-day availability of conference room-sized > spaces are taken as hard constraints. > > Again, more information would help a lot. > >> I do agree that a deeper analysis of the priorities should be >> undertaken and discussed with the community of course. > > And that is the core of my disquiet and request. It isn't as if > no one had asked before. > > best, > john
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Lou Berger
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Mary Barnes
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Michael Richardson
- Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111 IETF Administrative Director
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Ray Pelletier
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Leif Johansson
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Scott Bradner
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Michael StJohns
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Jari Arkko
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Leif Johansson
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … thomas nadeau
- Virtual BOFs (was: Re: Venue Announcement for IET… John C Klensin
- Re: Virtual BOFs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Virtual BOFs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Virtual BOFs John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Doug Barton
- Re: Virtual BOFs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Virtual BOFs John C Klensin