Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Fri, 27 August 2010 23:50 UTC
Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.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 550E43A66B4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.581, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Vwnxjem8RfV9 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0640D3A63C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=rg+ietf@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1282953060; x=1314489060; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:content-type:x-random-sig-tag; z=Message-Id:=20<p06240602c89dfdda9999@[99.111.97.129]> |In-Reply-To:=20<20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.co m>|References:=20<D06E18DA-96E7-43C5-B2DD-C90248ED82FE@is oc.org>=0D=0A=20<20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.co m>|X-Mailer:=20Eudora=20for=20Mac=20OS=20X|Date:=20Fri, =2027=20Aug=202010=2016:50:51=20-0700|To:=20Michael=20StJ ohns=20<mstjohns@comcast.net>,=0D=0A=20Ray=20Pelletier=20 <rpelletier@isoc.org>,=20Discussion=20IETF=20<ietf@ietf.o rg>|From:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> |Subject:=20Re:=20Meeting=20Venue=20Preference=20Survey |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii"=20 =3B=20format=3D"flowed"|X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201.0b28; bh=9J9Qa6cq+b3HL/+qsm8MaNscLxB78sZpgEhrt8N68dI=; b=a3tpqasJ5m57Yxdu9jtd79nAlzHKAqJJxqDaxA9WgY8szu3L4/7hznWO AE8uXm9daQEY23UqOgYgCRVpvCeRAdV14a7dzbH2Dfr+6mFpg72K3i76Y L3b54tMyAQYFaYEZjZrF8YjE9KBkzuz79YZOdTLxqU4PCwa4bHfvnwaBx g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6087"; a="52386600"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2010 16:50:58 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,279,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="5674520"
Received: from myvpn-l-414.ras.qualcomm.com (HELO [99.111.97.129]) ([10.64.129.158]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2010 16:50:51 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240602c89dfdda9999@[99.111.97.129]>
In-Reply-To: <20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.com>
References: <D06E18DA-96E7-43C5-B2DD-C90248ED82FE@isoc.org> <20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:50:51 -0700
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>, Discussion IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:21:54 -0700
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 23:50:30 -0000
At 4:23 PM -0400 8/27/10, Michael StJohns wrote: > I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and > specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat > stacking the deck. I agree! They are totally different in ease of access and availability of co-located hotel and meeting space. > What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both > formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of > having a good technical discussion with random people at pretty > much any time of the day or night - that's my view of what has > contributed to the IETF's success over the years. (Although the > marathon session for the first draft of the Host Requirements > document was probably stretching it) That generally means a central > large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel > food and drink in close proximity. Yes, very well put. I attend an IETF for the work. I'll vacation on my own. I'll add to this that, to me, ability to breathe is extremely important. That means a smoke-free venue and some chance of finding a smoke-free restaurant somewhere, plus air pollution that isn't too severe. Although personally I detest going to cold places, and would never do so for vacation, I'm happy to go to an IETF in Minneapolis or Vancouver in the winter, because it's not hard to get to, the venue works well, and restaurants are smoke-free. > With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting > off an international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto > a train for 2-5 hours somewhat worrisome. I spent more time online > for Maastricht trying to research how to get to Maastricht that I > did reading IDs Me, too, and I enlisted others to help, so it can't all be blamed on me being stupid. > I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to > say that air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting > venue has more of what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I > can't see any way to indicate that on your survey. Yes. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well. --Joe Ancis
- 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