Re: So, where to repeat?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:55 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> This is why I threw out a "not so random" city name -
>> Frankfurt.
> 
> Indeed, random was the wrong word.  That word is often used
> incorrectly.   The correct word is "arbitrary".
> 
> It is frankly entirely arbitrary to suggest a particular city,
> in terms of the a directed discussion about the /approach/ of
> choosing cities.
> 
> It presumes that the existing processes haven't researched
> most choices for Europe, Asia, or North America.

Dave,

Without suggesting that Frankfurt has not been carefully
researched (I gather it has and have some personal experience
with meeting arrangements, not just individual visits that leads
me to agree with the conclusion, whether you approve of such
personal experiences or not), I don't think you can dismiss it
as either "random" or even "arbitrary".  

One of the major criteria that has often been suggested --I
think even by you-- is "major airline hub".   As far as I know,
there are four such hubs in Europe: London (where we have met
and are planning to meet again), Paris (where we have met),
Amsterdam (where we have met), and Frankfurt.  I would consider
Copenhagen, Munich (where we have met), and a few other places
as secondary hubs; YMMD.  

I think its being the only place on that first list where we
have not met makes "why not Frankfurt" an entirely reasonable
and actually highly focused and predictable question.  If he had
said "why not Köln-Bonn" or "why not Nice" or any of dozens of
other smaller, non-hub airports, "arbitrary" would have been in
order.  But "Frankfurt" is no more arbitrary than Chicago,
Dallas, or New York -- there may be perfectly good reasons to
avoid all three (although we have met in Chicago and Dallas),
but it seems to me that asking about _any_ airline hub city that
significant can certainly not be dismissed as "arbitrary".

    john