Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

I very much like your suggestion. We’ve repeated at hotels before
(Minneapolis Hilton, Omni Shoreham in DC, Westin Bayshore in Vancouver,
Hilton Metropole in London, and of course the Prague Hilton all immediately
come to mind) and it usually seems to work well when we return to a known
venue.

Michal mentions working with a hotel chain rather than particular hotels. I
recall that the IETF partnered with Hilton for a period, and as a
participant that seemed to work very well.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Michal Krsek <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Fred,
> thank you for sharing the idea. Thank you for being polite to Prague
> (having ietf to Prague needs extra effort from my friends and me, so it is
> not personal benefit, you can imagine :-) ).
>
> Your proposal seems to be fine to me, but if we set too many rules, we may
> find ourselves in the trap of numbers/rules (like distance from overflow
> hotel to primary hotel has to not be considered same - weather, safety,
> taxi availability, public transport has to be considered, and I believe
> they are). Looking for a good South/Latin America place is great.
>
> One generic rule should be no more than new venue per year (two incumbent
> locations).
>
> I'm not too in the hotel business, but first time in PRG everything just
> worked if scouting team came with Hilton representative from US. Before
> that happened, they almost overlooked us trying to get in with the fiber.
> After this visit, everything worked smoothly. So may the contract be with
> the hotel chain (instead of specific hotel) - if this works?
>
> I see and really appreciate the work IAOC and AMS and volunteers put into
> meeting organization. I'm helping here in Prague and it is hard, and there
> are still some cultural misunderstandings.
>
> I'm little bit disappointed by seeing notorious complaints about "we can't
> fit into the same hotel" or "walking distance is too long" or "hotel is
> expensive" or "I need a visa to visit that country" ...
>
> BTW my dream is we have a kind of immersive remote participation, we are
> not there yet (in our laboratory environment, too).
>
>             With kind regards
>                     Michal Krsek
>
> P.S: From my personal experience - it is great if there is a group of
> local volunteers helping (seemed to me that japanese team did very good
> work).
>
>
> On 18.12.2015 22:31, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a question. I'm on the IAOC Meetings committee, which is an
>> advisory committee that does some research (with AMS) and makes a
>> recommendation to Ray, which he then takes to the IAOC. The IAOC sometimes
>> agrees with us and sometimes doesn't. You will have just seen a note from
>> Ray on this mailer detailing the IAOC's objectives in meeting planning; our
>> committee, with strong involvement from AMS, does the investigative legwork
>> to try to achieve those.
>>
>> Right now, I am suggesting a model to Ray, based on a proposal that we
>> have seen that would build a multi-meeting contract with a certain hotel.
>> As with most business, matters, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss
>> a contract below a certain level of detail. But in general terms, this
>> proposal comes from a hotel that we have met in multiple times, had
>> successful meetings, and as far as we know have met the objectives Ray
>> outlined. We have list of places we have met in in which that wasn't true
>> for one reason or another; we also have a set of locations that have worked
>> better than the average, and done so on multiple occasions. Some of these
>> are in Asia, some are in Europe, and some are in North America. Of probable
>> interest to you: one of the sites I think mostly works is in Prague.
>>
>> What I am suggesting to the IAOC is that, over the coming 9 years (27
>> meetings), we meet 9 times in Asia (and maybe that includes ANZ), 9 times
>> in Europe (and maybe that includes Africa), and 9 times in the Americas. Of
>> those, I am suggesting that we meet 3 of the 9 Asian times in a particular
>> hotel that has worked well for us in that part of the world, 6 of the 9
>> European times in two hotels that have worked well for us in Europe, and in
>> 9 of the 9 "Americas" times, meet in 3 hotels that have worked well for us
>> in the past in the US and Canada. Our world tour would begin to have
>> aspects of a rotation. For that to happen, I am suggesting that we ask
>> these specific locations whether they, too, would be interested in a
>> multi-meeting contract, and to propose terms for such meetings.
>>
>> Folks from Latin America (e.g., South and Central, generally
>> spanish-speaking and portuguese-speaking) will object on the grounds that
>> they would like to be included in the rotation. I can respond to that in a
>> couple of ways, one of which is that I honestly don't expect to get
>> proposals for 3 meetings in 9 years from each of the 3 North American
>> hotels on my little list. Also, we can probably expect a little flexibility
>> in contracting that would allow us to insert a Latin American location by
>> moving one of the venues out a little bit. I think the problem is solvable.
>>
>> What this does is give us a set of locations, for as many as 18 of the
>> coming 27 meetings, that we know work for the IETF and its purposes,
>> because they have in the past. It also gives us at least 9 of the coming 27
>> meetings in which we can explore locations such as you advocate.
>>
>> What will be the problems with placing those meetings? North America is
>> frankly not too hard. Europe takes a little more effort, especially in
>> finding a suitable host. Asia/ANZ - we put a lot of effort into that. The
>> locations that can offer us the number of bedrooms and breakout rooms we
>> need, can honestly discuss having 1500 people walk out of a meeting at
>> 11:30 and return by 13:00, and are near major hub or regional airports in
>> Asia is a little thin, and where we find them, they are expensive.
>>
>> Let me ask, since you clearly have opinions on such matters - what would
>> you think of such an arrangement? What am I missing in such a proposal?
>>
>
>