Re: limiting our set of cities

Michal Krsek <> Thu, 20 February 2020 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667F712004A for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:28:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtKxb-j-Splz for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53DA512001A for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s144so2688140wme.1 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:28:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=7GuW6Lvps7aZSGTiV61wrP9aBZIhovNA1Fk3pE9PqbM=; b=awQGcBpRadgbeLDbRlcrQCLResfxp76t5E7jrvvsMR/9GSYy+D77wrDPlHUaqOBFmo 97SeBuJGnojwfMKZZ8Aki5JaZxbWmK2XIGFLfMnsDJryDasQKh8DAFPN8lMJsVEMk+NF 4jW5SnSTcnZbSV0kJRmBPIWOYtD0Fa33KzGu7Cvj7Rcq+IBPvtapOfes12ZPZdK1zpTD hdlmC+KDc84+Mmk2Yne9zYJpHtrmKkifM0XT/hpuFCTA6+jGEhlKGGgC5KJ13NYa6GQA HOTl2MqnWNw0+35bFBuITBaRrOOBvPtlOnunJFAeg3hdpQobLOOCzPJnnW7p34xgdxUW qtJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=7GuW6Lvps7aZSGTiV61wrP9aBZIhovNA1Fk3pE9PqbM=; b=AImTGcQ7Xvw5450uFyMeHQsptfFBlh4bCMu7HTvFHJgPHlP2NPcVsxE0Geo5tEm2lk NiXlLzHV/pIafLfOWCe1T57esu5fdxAAyGhq9UnAKVKgS+lBHt+qmVmkbgXcouLh4AHY 8Z3Ir3gAJ+DNZxCR5cnqUkpwwaSxSdj89kAYIs99624D+qflZoZeMp1sL8Tbz7r4v9pz CRRTNMActJ+r/StDOQzby6XpNOQFK4/2H+EpubGQvZ7zBBLwa31qrA7B60klRWU9QhJR 8gdfSiTPEArWKC6K9qgKF3o3Gddyq20JRCdAVrnyPESobk3M16WHGi73r08kChwO7UPy OzqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7kQld3yZFP/v1zXZ/Jj2W1dSSzTfQEjQRXcAdNkrxVuFIB5Gg ZhQQhbjhOCgR5HXCvkvppLJvr5P4iTs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwTcq34cuBp//lYgQQY84ov4pLrjeZDyEVN9zLyNWU0EAz8G3CeSqT+mSCodret7Hj381cJKw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e28a:: with SMTP id z132mr4209608wmg.157.1582201702245; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id b10sm4219611wrt.90.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku>
From: Michal Krsek <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:28:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17764.1582194882@dooku>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: cs
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:28:26 -0000

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.