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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> enough merely to have excellent staff.  We need to go back to the
> better places and benefit from the learning curve.  This doesn't
> mean "no new venues" but it means fewer.

As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want to return
to?  I get your argument in principle, but it seems to me that there
has been quite a lot of complaining in the past.  The one factor that
seems to me most likely to reduce complaints -- weather -- is
evidently beyond the Secretariat's or IAOC's control.

People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver, elevators
notwithstanding.  We're going to do that.  (I don't understand why the
previous Vencouver venue was less desirable -- to me, these venues
were very similar, and not very far apart.  I note, however, that the
previous two Vancouver visits were near the end of the year, when it
rains all the time in Vancouver.)

People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I presume
it's out.

Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel expense
in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
Should we try to return there?

People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although
afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue.  I note that
the weather was great.  Should we try to return?

I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in 2011, which
was striking to me because very little seemed different to me compared
to our first visit there.  Perhaps this is evidence of the "tuning"
you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance).
But I note the weather was excellent.

Beijing?  I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought that was
an example of a terrible location, but many people seemed happy with
it)?  Hiroshima?  Stockholm?  San Francisco (we thought the crime at
Paris was bad, yet didn't complain about being smack up against the
Tenderloin)?  Or there's the old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we
could do it in March.  The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of
people.  Philadelphia, people complained about expense.  Chicago, too
(combined with hotel renovations).  

That gets us back through 2007.  Which of the venues do you think we
should return to, to which we already haven't returned or planned to
return?  And why? 

For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to any of
those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of them except
Hiroshima, which I missed due to other commitments.  That includes
both Maastricht and Dublin, which were both apparently trials for
large numbers of others.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]