IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <steve@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5527C11E80F2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4+0Za+XOQsv6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BD411E80F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [70.88.139.89] (account steve@shinkuro.com HELO [192.168.168.160]) by execdsl.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTPSA id 20735609; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:02:42 +0000
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|0ebd669a4eccc2cca00daf1beb84ed50o76MuX03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|AC30AAA7-8634-4851-86CC-6F64095BB600@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:01:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <39C56E09-72AD-4C99-9A62-3992DEF04D70@shinkuro.com>
References: <31BCE4DE825B3F4D9E452EFBBD3F1EF2834A0516@PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com> <502169E9.9020009@dcrocker.net> <AC30AAA7-8634-4851-86CC-6F64095BB600@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|0ebd669a4eccc2cca00daf1beb84ed50o76MuX03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|AC30AAA7-8634-4851-86CC-6F64095BB600@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:01:31 -0000

I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been downtown.  Same for Vienna.

Steve
 
On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Tim Chown wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver.  Great meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
> 
> My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and Maastricht.
> 
> Of course, you have to experiment to find good repeat venues...
> 
> Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email