Re: So, where to repeat?

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:44:32PM -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > and Vancouver have stood out.  But still, the only really serious
> > consideration for me is whether or not the facilities make it easier
> > to get done the things that need to get done.
> 
> Using those criteria, I would rate Prague and Beijing as good as or
> better than Minneapolis, and cheaper if you avoid the big hotels.

Thanks to Scott and Melinda for demonstrating the problem I saw in the
original position.  Dave's original argument was that by going back to
places instead of finding new ones, we win by being able to tune.  But
I am unable to see from the evidence the kind of agreement on a site
that results in mere tuning.  For _every_ meeting, I can think of some
set of people who will have reservations about the venue for some
reason.  That is not the basis for simple tuning.  Some people (many
of whom are the squeakiest wheels) appear to have internally
inconsistent sets of demands.

I think the people selecting venues -- return or otherwise -- have a
thankless job, and I think that we should stop trying to manage that
job on a list of a thousand people.  "This worked, that didn't" is,
we've heard, useful feedback.  Aside from that, I don't see what more
we have to say.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]