Re: limiting our set of cities

[Michal Krsek <[e-mail]>]

Hello Michael,

> 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?

I think this not a good idea.

Based on my experience (I spent significant energy to bring IETF to 
Prague) the event brings local attention to the Internet and people are 
more likely want to participate. And (I believe) new city (and Prague is 
relativelly new city) can host succesfull meeting.

> Many have suggested this as a better policy, but it seems that it's just
> discussion.
>
> Christian Huitema made a good case already for the Asia list being not just
> Bangkok/Singapore, but also including Tokyo/Yokohama and Seoul.
> That's four for Asia.
>
> One could easily add: North America: Vancouver, San Francisco, Montreal, Philadelphia.
> Europe: Prague, Berlin, London, (Paris?)

I expect some voices for Minneapolis and some other saying "no" for any 
US venue. I also saw some objections to Singapore in the list in the past.

The other problem is that experience in cities can change over time (due 
of objective or subjective reasons). And we need a process get cities in 
and out the list.

> I'm sure that many of the cities on your list are potentially interesting,
> but why bother make the effort?
> Yes, we should have "*" in the rotation 1-1-1-*, but we should do it
> intentionally as reach out.
> I don't see Austin (or Ottawa, or Malta) as being reach-out, as nice as they
> might be.

For me it seems like the point is - can we find local volunteers on top 
of "offical host" who can put an extra effort to make the organization 
smooth. Looks to me like bridging the gap in between ietf meeting 
participant expectations and local culture is a key for success.


                 Michal