Re: limiting our set of cities

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 21 February 2020 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC2112003E for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:00:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.501
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JcUkggCY8xBd for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D31E0120026 for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EA731F458 for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 19:00:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1AC7C1A3B74; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:00:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku> <>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Sullivan <> message dated "Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:42:59 -0500."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:00:32 -0500
Message-ID: <14987.1582311632@dooku>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 19:00:42 -0000

Andrew Sullivan <> wrote:
    >> Can you tell the community if the LLC has any plans/thoughts to stop
    >> looking for new places to meet, rather to just establish a list of
    >> 10-15 cities where we have successfully met, and simply repeat?

    > There was a whole WG that went over this ground in detail not very long
    > ago, and it produced a procedure.  I think the procedure is being
    > worked, and in my opinion it would be better to let it run a little
    > while to see whether it produces good results, rather than trying to
    > optimize it right now.

Yes, there was a whole WG, and I think that the WG was encouraged not to
micromanage the IASA/IAOC/IETF-LLC.
{Both draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-07 and draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16
are surprisingly still in MISREF.. or are they. I guess because of IETF-LLC
stuff. Looks like it might all come out in moment now. meeting-policy-07 does
mention "IASA", btw}

I scanned both documents again to be sure, and indeed, the question of how
the list of venues is to be made is, quite reasonably, not micromanaged in
the documents.

It therefore seems appropriate that I ask the question I did, of the
executive director.   The response, *that this is something the community has
to talk about*, is reasonable, but it was not part of the mtgvenue discussion.

Why is the IETF LLC making lists of cities of places where have never met,
(Ottawa? Seriously?  We established 20years ago it won't work)
and why does it seem like we continue to spend money and time (including
flights to check places out) when we have quite a number of successful
meetings in many places.
Yes, for Europe and North America, many is certainly the case.

I read all about how we have to avoid getting locked in, and we need to
change things periodically to keep the hotels on their toes.  Of course.
I never suggested we meet the same place every year.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]        |   ruby on rails    [

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-