Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 27 August 2010 20:52 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 899FF3A687B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.200, BAYES_50=0.001, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 g1smA8OKYPRu for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E973A67B5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (unknown [132.213.238.4]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B5913455E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CB098A9E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Discussion IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
In-Reply-To: <20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.com>
References: <D06E18DA-96E7-43C5-B2DD-C90248ED82FE@isoc.org> <20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 21)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:52:32 -0400
Message-ID: <15114.1282942352@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
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: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:52:02 -0000
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> writes: Michael> What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with Michael> both formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a Michael> good chance of having a good technical discussion with Michael> random people at pretty much any time of the day or night - Michael> that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's Michael> success over the years. (Although the marathon session for Michael> the first draft of the Host Requirements document was Michael> probably stretching it) That generally means a central Michael> large hotel with attached conference space with access to Michael> non-hotel food and drink in close proximity. +1 The hotel bars in: - Minneapolis - Chicago (sorta) - DC (all three meetings) - Atlanta - Vancouver - Memphis - San Francisco (2004) were very good for this. The lack of clear canonical bars in: - Vienna - Montreal (both times) - Phildelphia (I think) were problems. I reserve judgement on Prague (smoke), and on Pittsburgh and Dallas, because I can't recall. The rest I either wasn't there, or I simply can't recall. Michael> With respect to tourism, at different times in my career, Michael> I've had different interests in the IETF. Currently, I'm Michael> down to only a few WGs that I follow and as of the last Michael> meeting, none that I'm currently contributing to. Michael> Considering that I'm now consulting as my main activity and Michael> paying for this on my own dime, I expect that my ratio of Michael> tourism to attendance will be somewhat skewed towards Michael> tourism, but wouldn't expect the IETF to cater to that. My Michael> prime interest is still technical interaction and Michael> discussion. +1 on all points here. Michael> I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis Michael> except to say that air connectivity is better to Michael> Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of what I'm Michael> looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to Michael> indicate that on your survey. I also have no problem with Minneapolis, and I really do want to take the train there... -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE> then sign the petition.
- Meeting Venue Preference Survey Ray Pelletier
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Michael StJohns
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Michael Richardson
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Mary Barnes
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey James M. Polk
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Joel Jaeggli
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Dave CROCKER
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Dave CROCKER
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey John C Klensin
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Doug Ewell
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Donald Eastlake
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Dave CROCKER