IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Hotel situation

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5EE1A909D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:05:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AKuh3hOVrRCV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1CF1A909C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B299107AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r3vzxjJyA7Rf for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-73-142-157-135.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.142.157.135]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB3561066A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:05:42 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Message-ID: <20151216230541.GM693@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com> <B8043FEE-40E4-4BF2-B1E6-031DBCC6D17C@lucidvision.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B8043FEE-40E4-4BF2-B1E6-031DBCC6D17C@lucidvision.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WsWBca-jM3cNIBil7spZp53PPAE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:05:46 -0000

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:32:14PM -0500, Nadeau Thomas wrote:

> At this point, its clear that having meetings somewhere as part of the outreach program is, but that
> clearly is not optimizing for the existing attendees. 

I don't understand this claim.  What is the history where we are
having meetings as part of outreach, _except_ for the current example
(which is admittedly outside our usual rotation).  We have a 1/1/1
rotation because we decided to share the pain among regions where most
of our participants come from, not from "outreach".  It's not
"outreach" to have a meeting in Japan, where a significant number of
participants live.

I certainly understand people's concern about availability at the
hotel, and I'm sure the IAOC and the meetings committee will respond
with the data people need.  But we must not mischaracterise the
reasons why we move around the world.

Best regards,

A (for myself and nobody else)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email