Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 07:27 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E9F3A6808 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7VGJtRO+Z4x8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DBD3A6819 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Oku6k-000ODq-Mo; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:27:46 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:27:45 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: barryleiba@computer.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
Message-ID: <6F187B4328FA3BAEF5820D39@PST.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:26:06 -0700
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:27:13 -0000
--On Thursday, August 12, 2010 16:41 -0500 Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring >> North American meeting. There is a reasonable convenience >> factor in terms of nearby hotels, restuarants and food >> markets (there's an excellent one just a couple blocks from >> the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that folks >> preferred Quebec City, which suggests that the majority of >> folks don't favor the idea of returning to the same city. > > One thing this suggests to me is that the people who are prone > to taking the survey favour the idea of variety. I dismember > how many survey responses we had, and how the responses broke > down when categorized by number of IETF meetings attended, so > I can't be sure, here. But I'm guessing that many of the > responses came from the long-timers who will go wherever the > meeting is, and that not so many came from the folks who are > relatively new and are considering increasing their > participation. In addition to the selection bias issues that Andrew cites and Dave indirectly mentions (and with which I agree), there is something special about this type of "survey". People were asked which they preferred, but not why. The preferences are, IMO, a complex matter and differ from person to person and maybe the day the question is answered. As an example, I generally prefer Vancouver and liked the venue situation there (some allergy problems that I can suppress with drugs as long as the meeting isn't over about a week long notwithstanding - I actually had worse asthma problems in the Maastricht facility). I've also had some bad meeting experiences in Quebec City although they were a few decades ago. However, at the time the survey was taken, I was suffering from being even more thoroughly sick of airplanes and airports than usual and Quebec City is a convenient five and a fraction hour drive from my usual starting point for trips north. So, in response to the question and based partially on wishful thinking that IAOC had qualified facilities in both cities and could reasonably promise as good a meeting experience in Quebec as in Vancouver, I voted for Quebec. Had my starting point been a few hours further away, or had I needed to contemplate the (usually truly awful) flight connection situation to Quebec, the answer would have been different. Getting from that situation to "favor variety", "dislike Vancouver", or even "would not rather be in Minneapolis if the visa situation were better" would be a pretty big stretch and an incorrect inference. FWIW, Quebec City is circa 1.5 hours further from me (driving time) than Montreal, where I remember very satisfactory meeting and environmental experiences. Given a Montreal - Quebec City choice, Quebec City would lose badly for me. And Montreal has a meaningful international airport even though it isn't as good in that regard, especially for flights to Asia, as Toronto. john
- Re: Varying meeting venue -- why? John C Klensin
- RE: Varying meeting venue -- why? Ross Callon
- RE: Varying meeting venue -- why? Ross Callon
- Re: Varying meeting venue -- why? Dave CROCKER