Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
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 7973C3A69F3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 x-qJnAGLp-qv for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BC13A63C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.227] (c-98-234-104-156.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.104.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7GF6P10033732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:06:26 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
References: <0C21C841-AF7D-4339-902C-B4B70B8EC2DE@gmail.com> <4C62C935.9080702@gmail.com> <4C62D0A6.6080903@dcrocker.net> <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB177049A8E8D1662@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4C641C4B.3010507@gmail.com> <5BB3C285-C638-4878-9150-95D678AE6B2D@gmail.com> <4C6433F7.6030808@stpeter.im> <EE96D3C14A054B70931F7146132DB544@china.huawei.com> <AANLkTin=cedjik9yY5ptrSPwhy0EF_hRBscWHb+kRAQL@mail.gmail.com> <4C644B99.2000709@dcrocker.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1008131034260.29591@pita.cisco.com> <4C659360.2060000@dcrocker.net>
Message-Id: <42CDE47C-EAF1-42FE-B65B-FA81B5CAC325@bogus.com>
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C659360.2060000@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (7B405)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 7B405)
Subject: Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:07:23 -0700
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:06:26 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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 15:05:59 -0000

It's is certainly possible to make it to Hiroshima on a day trip from Tokyo. N1 leaves Tokyo at 0600 and arrives in Hiroshima at 0943 so you opinion is rather poorly informed.

In a business context people do it all the time.

Joel's iPad

On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:48, Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 8/13/2010 10:40 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>> Based on a sample of 3 (Hiroshima, Anaheim and Maastricht) I am not at
>> all sure your statement is factually correct. Tokyo would have been
>> better than Hiroshima and Amsterdam might have been better than
>> Maastricht and maybe "LA" (a big place) would have been better than
>> Anaheim, but to conclude that these locations "discourage one-day
>> attendance" I think is a stretch.
> 
> 
> Well, since the target market isn't really specified and the criteria for satisfying it aren't specified, what's really going on is a lot of private models that probably don't match.
> 
> Getting some agreement at this level would permit more substantive consideration, so here's an attempt to specify it:
> 
> A Day Pass is for attendees with a very narrow focus of activity in an IETF meeting.  The fee reduces the cost of their participation substantially, both in terms of money and time.
> 
> Alternative criteria:
> 
> Local --
> 
>     One kind of Day Pass user would be someone relatively local to the meeting area. They should be able to travel to and from the meeting and attend it all on the same day.
> 
> Regional --
> 
>     Another kind of Day Pass user would permit a two-day trip, with one night at the conference venue.  Travel time and cost for a regional attendee is much higher than for a Local attendee, but still far less expensive than a full attendee.
> 
> In terms of Local attendees, for the 3 cited venues, only Anaheim is reasonable, IMO.  Maastrict and Hiroshima are too far away from significant centers of IETF-related work to qualify.
> 
> I'm not sure whether Hiroshima would qualify for a Regional attendee, but assume it would.  So would the other 3 sites.
> 
> My comment had assumed a goal of Local attendees.  Perhaps you intend Regional?
> 
> d/
> 
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> An example of the problem with the day pass experiment is our tendency to be
>>> at venues that discourage one-day attendance.
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>