Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Mon, 30 August 2010 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.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 F10C43A68F2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 5PBXmBUjtTYR for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9029C3A699E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:720:410:100f:223:32ff:fec4:ba94] ([IPv6:2001:720:410:100f:223:32ff:fec4:ba94]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o7UBjm55045317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:45:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <201008280104.o7S14YHn020742@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:46:49 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <03B89CDF-1AD7-4CBB-8FEC-290C49287E05@muada.com>
References: <D06E18DA-96E7-43C5-B2DD-C90248ED82FE@isoc.org> <20100827202329.DAFF23A687B@core3.amsl.com> <AANLkTi=Pz+LMU+hOms1rmexW3j8Kdp-tog2urYTaeWPz@mail.gmail.com> <201008280104.o7S14YHn020742@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Discussion IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 30 Aug 2010 11:46:31 -0000

On 28 aug 2010, at 3:04, James M. Polk wrote:

> I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by saying the comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando, Vancouver, Barcelona, Prague) isn't even remotely close to including Maastricht. Each of the above cities are accessible internationally via air (as in: on intercontinental flights), and from many cities.  Maastricht has a very small airport that I'm not sure you can get to it outside of NL and Germany (I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong by much). You certainly can't get to Maastricht from North America or Asian directly.

I've been critical about this beforehand, but let me defend Maastricht a little here.

You guys are applying American thinking here. Don't think of Maastricht as a town with an unusably small airport, but rather think of it as having a nice big airport (that would be schiphol, often called "amsterdam airport") that happens to be unusually far away from the city. If you fly into New York ground transportation is going to take a good while, too. From schiphol to Maastricht is worse, but only by a factor two or so.

Actually much of the confusion regarding travel was because there was more choice than usual: people were flying into three airports (AMS, FRA, BRU). From Frankfurt and Brussels the train travel was international, and as some people have experienced, the combination of international flying and international train travel is less than ideal. But apparently people preferred this to flying through schiphol. That's their choice. I'm pretty sure that as someone who doesn't drive going to the Anaheim meeting would have been more problematic for me than Maastricht.

Although I'm from the Netherlands I had never really visited Maastricht before, and I must say it's a very nice city. I'm looking forward to going back for a repeat visit.

The main thing I ended up disliking about this meeting venue was the location of the conference center in the middle of nowhere. Having to travel for at least 15 minutes just to buy a soda or a sandwich (outside lunch hours) was REALLY annoying.

All in all Maastricht is getting a passing grade from me, but I certainly hope that we can do a bit better in the future.