RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)
"Robin Uyeshiro" <uyeshiro@ifa.hawaii.edu> Mon, 20 September 2004 21:28 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23165; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9VoE-0002Ta-9w; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:34:55 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9VLb-0002hy-FU; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:05:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9UI0-0004sd-SW for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:57:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06511 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hale160.ifa.hawaii.edu ([128.171.160.5] helo=hale.ifa.hawaii.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9UOE-0005sA-8u for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:03:59 -0400
Received: from XeonAL (xeonal [128.171.163.193]) by hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8KJvOU11022; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:57:24 -1000 (HST)
From: Robin Uyeshiro <uyeshiro@ifa.hawaii.edu>
To: 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@jck.com>, 'Lars Eggert' <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, 'Sam Hartman' <hartmans@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:57:21 -1000
Message-ID: <002701c49f4c$0ab7e010$c1a3ab80@XeonAL>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
In-Reply-To: <086DEF6FF9C4B05CFC8D3455@scan.jck.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Would the IEEE 802 Plenaries have comparable geographical/logistical requirements to IETF meetings? Their next few plenaries are scheduled in San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Vancouver, New Orleans, San Diego, and Dallas. All but one are in the US, and all are in North America. I attended one plenary at Hilton Head, and talked to people about another held on Maui, both resort areas. This was before the crash, though, so perhaps money is tighter now. I'm not advocating doing the same thing; just thought another data point might be helpful. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/meeting/future_meetings.html -- Robin Uyeshiro P.S. Honolulu has a new convention center. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:59 AM To: Lars Eggert; Sam Hartman Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF 62 --On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de> wrote: >> Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing >> for pleasant climate and good vacation spots. I come to the >> IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the >> other participants have the same goal. We should be somewhat >> careful of optimizing for enjoyable location. I'd rather see >> us optimize for who can attend and cost. > > If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between > the enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF > output, please post it. Lars, I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on experience with other organizations and meetings of similar technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is a nice place. Rather, it is the tendency of people who have to review and approve travel to look at a destination, pronounce the words "probable boggle" and then say "no". And I've seen enough situations in which that has occurred to make that a real concern. It probably isn't enough of a concern to say "we absolutely should, or should not, meet there", but it should be a significant consideration. On other observation on the US situation. In the few years, we have had a significant problem with participants from some countries getting to US meetings at all due to increasing scrutiny of visa applications and consequent difficulties in getting visas. Sometimes, those delays have been equivalent to visa denial, even when no formal denial occurs. Those restrictions are qualitatively different from, e.g., the fingerprint issue, since they prevent someone from even making the decision as to whether they are willing to put up with the marginal aggravation and intrusion to attend. Classes of IETF participants are excluded entirely depending on their nationality or normal residency, and that has a direct on IETF openness and global participation. That is, fwiw, I've been suggesting that we reduce the focus on meetings in the US for a few years now. As others have pointed out, doing that isn't quite as easy as would appear to be the case at first glance but, IMO, we should keep trying. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- first steps (was The other parts of the report...) scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Carl Malamud
- What we need done (Re: first steps (was The other… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- Re: What we need done (Re: first steps (was The o… avri
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Joel Jaeggli
- IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) shogunx
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) william(at)elan.net
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Hadmut Danisch
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Dick St.Peters
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 Sam Hartman
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 John C Klensin
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Mark Allman
- RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62) Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: IETF 62 Scott Michel
- Re: IETF 62 Michael D Frisch
- Re: IETF 62 Ted Faber