Re: Hotel situation

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Fri, 08 January 2016 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
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 88F4F1B2C99 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <vYIJWBxptDMv>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 vYIJWBxptDMv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE5C1B2B5B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:32:01 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240602d2b5f47e596c@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <346B0259-F6BD-4207-988F-950D6C03F7FD@piuha.net>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <CABmDk8n2TFvmoMVa8t3FOGXtKF9GUii=wrEyMpJucAoLzCix1Q@mail.gmail.com> <346B0259-F6BD-4207-988F-950D6C03F7FD@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:24:59 -0800
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a0QC_ljXugK8SzQZP8ihqD4XaRA>
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 23:32:03 -0000

At 10:27 PM +0200 1/4/16, Jari Arkko wrote:

>  I take the guidance to the IAOC should be at least:
>
>  - make sure the room blocks are better sufficient than they have 
> been in last meetings
>  - use successful meeting places multiple times
>
>  What else?
>
>>  prefers Minneapolis
>
>  Personally, I love cold places, particularly during winter. But for 
> the record, Minneapolis has some drawbacks, too, such as flight 
> connections being somewhat limited compared to, say, Vancouver or 
> Dallas or Atlanta.

I view personal and work travel as two very different things, so I'm 
not looking for IETFs to meet in places I want to visit (I'll go on 
my own).  Personally, I hate going to cold places (I never check bags 
and much prefer flying with lighter/fewer clothing layers), and felt 
that Hawaii was a terrific meeting venue (especially because the 
reception and other events could be held outdoors, and we could talk 
to people without going hoarse from shouting).  I do think the 
Minneapolis, Vancouver, and Dallas venues worked well.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Most people and their lazy, conventional ways of thinking wear
down our childlike thinking powers over time. And we help them.
                               --Marco Marsan, from 'Think Naked'