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.